■ Hal 



Ik 



lg| f* I 



■ 



J 




^m 



r v -^ 






' 


















<\ /y 



*>"^% / 






o5 ^ 









, x / <■ . %;; ! \:: ; ^- s 












* ^ 









<C ^s 



■N* ? -^\ ?\^ ^ 



,v v 



'■> <&' 



\V 


















W 
-l ^j 



The origin of Man 



OR 



Evolution or Revolution — Which ? 



BY 



G. W. POOL, Ph.B. 




FROM THE PRESS OF 

THE WESTERN METHODIST BOOK CONCERN 

CINCINNATI 



I APR 






tCcived 

1905 

.Copyngnt uary 

COPY 3. 



Copyright, 1904, by 
G. W. POOL 



.PS2. 



Author's Preface. 

T^HERE have been so many works written on evolution 
that the publication of another book on that subject 
demands an explanation. The circumstances that called 
forth this volume are these: The writer some ten years 
ago had gathered his materials together to begin the 
writing of a book on an entirely different subject, when 
the question of the method of treatment presented itself. 
If evolution were true, the manner of treatment must be 
in harmony with this hypothesis : but, if special creation 
were true, it must be made to conform to this theory. It 
was useless for the writer to proceed with the work until 
he had settled in his own mind which theory was a proba- 
ble truth. Prior to this time he had made no thorough 
study of the evidence adduced to support these theories, 
but from that time to the present hour, he has given 
every spare moment to the investigation of the claims 
of these theories. 

This investigation was made to satisfy the writer's 
own mind, and with no intention whatever of writing i 
book on the subject. But having presented some of the 
results of the investigation in the form o\ lectures, some 
of those who heard the lectures, in whose judgment the 
writer had confidence, thought that they were worthy of 

3 



4 The Origin of Man 

a wider circulation and should be given a more permanent 
form. But these views would not have been presented to 
the public even then, had not the writer been impressed 
with the fact that what had been written in defense of 
special creation was largely of a negative character, while 
it seemed to him that there was abundance of positive 
scientific evidence that tended to establish this theory. 
And the writer was convinced also that the faith of many 
was being unsettled by the revolutionary changes that 
have been taking place in this age of transition, resulting 
from the disturbing influence of the evolutionary 
philosophy. 

The hypothesis of evolution has been accepted as fully 
demonstrated, and the doctrines of the Christian religion 
are being reconstructed and made to conform to the teach- 
ings of this new philosophy. Far-reaching changes, con- 
sequently, have taken place in the religious beliefs that 
have been held formerly as truths that could not be 
shaken. Evolution has been accepted as a proved result 
of science, and criticism based on its deductions tend to 
undermine the faith of many in a divine revelation. The 
danger is not that this criticism will destroy the Bible for 
it will stand as impregnable as Gibraltar when the critics 
are dead and forgotten and their criticism has power only 
to provoke a smile. But the faith of many in the Bible is 
being destroyed, and this is a serious matter. It seems to 
the writer that there has been an undue haste among re- 
ligious teachers to adjust the beliefs that have long been 
held as established in order to harmonize them with the 
doctrines of evolution. If the hypothesis is fully estab- 
lished, of course, the only thing to do is to harmonize the 



Preface 5 

teachings of the Scriptures with the theory, or abandon 
the Bible and Christianity altogether. 

The writer began his investigations fully expecting 
to find that the scientific evidence would be overwhelm- 
ing in favor of the theory of evolution, and contrary to 
his expectations found abundant evidence to confirm his 
belief in the theory of special creation. He began the 
study of the subject with the determination to accept the 
theory that had the preponderance of evidence in its 
favor, supposing from the confident assertions of popu- 
lar writers that this would be the hypothesis of evolution ; 
but he emerged from his investigations with his belief in 
the theory of special creation firmly established as a ra- 
tional and scientific hypothesis. 

This book has not been written for men of science, 
but for intelligent, thinking laymen, who do not have 
time to investigate such questions for themselves, but 
who are vitally interested in the results of the investiga- 
tion, and for this reason all technical terms, as far as pos- 
sible, have been avoided. There is no claim made to lit- 
erary excellence. The attempt has been made to give a 
clear and concise statement of the essential facts of these 
theories upon which the reader might be able to base a 
judgment. It has seemed more important to set forth the 
thought clearly and give a correct theory, than to sacri- 
fice these for mere literary embellishments. 

The writer makes no claim to originality except in 
the interpretation of the facts demonstrated by science 
and in the method of treatment. There is abundant lit- 
erature on the subject, and this has been made use of in 
the investigation. In fact, the materials for the work 



6 The Origin of Man 

have been gathered largely from the writings of evolu- 
tionists themselves. The facts discovered by evolution- 
ists have been made use of, but their interpretations of 
these facts have not been accepted. Wherever the doc- 
trines of evolutionists have been set forth, the language 
of these writers has been closely followed. 

In a book involving the reading of such a large num- 
ber of works, it is difficult to make adequate acknowl- 
edgment of one's indebtedness. The writer acknowl- 
edges his indebtedness to the philosophical writings of 
Professor Borden P. Bowne in the preparation of the in- 
troduction. And, besides the regular text-books on 
Geology, he is indebted to the works of the distinguished 
geologists, M. Joachin Barrande, Dr. Alexander Win- 
chell, but chiefly to Sir J. William Dawson. And where 
he is indebted to other writers, or where there has been 
thought transference, particular acknowledgment has 
been made in the footnotes. 

The reader is granted the same privilege in perusing 
these pages that the writer has claimed for himself in 
reading the works of others. He asks nothing more than 
that the line of thought be followed to the end, and that 
the reader then draw such a conclusion as in his judgment 
seems to be a probable truth. 



Table of Contents 

Page 

Introduction, - 9 

part first 

Chapter 

I. Evolution, - - 39 

II. The Proofs of Evolution, - - - - 71 

III. Facts Against Evolution, - - - - 117 

Part Second 

I. Revolution, 155 

II. The Formation of the Earth, - - 205 

III. The Development of the Species, - - 239 

IV. Man a Revolution, - 269 
V. The Origin of Life, - 317 

VI. The Source of Man's Origin, - 359 



INTRODUCTION 

9 



"The men who in field and laboratory are working out the facts, 
do not speculate at all. Content with slowing building up the sum of 
actual knowledge in some neglected and restricted province, they are 
too absorbed to notice even what the workers in the other provinces 
are about. Thus it happens that while there are many scientific 
men, there are few scientific thinkers. The complaint is often made 
that science speculates too much. It is quite the other way. One 
has only to read the average book of science in almost any depart- 
ment to wonder at the wealth of knowledge, the brilliancy of obser- 
vation, and the barrenness of idea. On the other hand, though scien- 
tific experts will not think themselves, there is always a multitude 
of onlookers waiting to do it for them. Among these what strikes 
one is the ignorance of fact and the audacity of the idea. The 
moment any great half-truth in Nature is unearthed, these unqualified 
practitioners leap to a generalization; and the observers meantime, 
on the track of the other half, are too busy or too oblivious to refute 
their heresies. Hence, long after its foundations are undermined, a 
brilliant generalization will retain its hold upon the popular mind; 
and before the complementary, the qualifying, or the neutralizing 
facts can be supplied, the mischief is done." — Drummond. 



10 



INTRODUCTION. 

UPON the highest pinnacle of the earth's life, stands 
man, the crown jewel of the universe. He stands 
without a rival at the head of the ascending scale 
of life on the earth. Man is the supreme product, the 
crowning glory of the creative process. He is a self-con- 
scious being, possessing sensibility, the power of free voli- 
tion, the ability to think, the capacity to know, the faculty 
of reason, together with a high moral and spiritual nature. 

Whence came this ponderous sphere which man inhabits ? 
And whence came the man that dwells upon it? Man is, 
in some way he came to be, but how did he originate ? This 
is a question of paramount importance to every member of 
the race. And man in his eager quest after knowledge has 
sought long and diligently to discover the source of his 
origin. He has been tireless in his efforts to solve the mys- 
tery that surrounds his advent in the world. He has pene- 
trated the earth beneath him, and has soared into the heavens 
above him, that he might learn the secret of his origin. The 
question as to how the human race came upon the earth is 
one that can not be banished from the mind, and must be 
given a careful consideration until a satisfactory answer is 
obtained. 

Man has either always inhabited the earth, or he has 
taken up his abode here at some definite time in the world's 
history. But it is an impossibility for the race to have al- 
ways dwelt upon the earth, for reason demands a beginning. 
That which is eternal must of necessity be self-existent, but 
that which is temporal must have been caused to exist, 

ii 



12 The Origin of Man 

hence, must have had a beginning. An unending mutation 
marks the history of the human race. Man stands, as it 
were, on the brink of an illimitable sea, that never restores 
again anything that falls into its waters. We hear only the 
moan of the relentless waves that beat upon its shores. The 
lands we occupy were once the dwelling place of other peo- 
ples, who lived, and wrought, and passed away. There is 
a limit to life beyond which we can not pass. Decay and 
death are inevitable. What has taken place with the gen- 
erations of the past is prophetic of our own history. Man 
is not self-existent, therefore he can not have always in- 
habited the earth. 

It is impossible for us to conceive of the material uni- 
verse with its numerous forms of life, in the light of the 
present state of knowledge, as having always existed. The 
science of Geology has demonstrated a beginning for the 
earth, the species, and man. The geologist traces the his- 
tory of the planet on which we dwell through its various 
geological stages until he comes to a time when the globe 
was in a molten condition, and, then, still further back when 
it was in a gaseous state. Life was an impossibility in these 
early periods, for such was the condition of the earth in 
the gaseous and molten state that no living matter could 
have existed upon it. Life being an impossibility in these 
earlier epochs, it must have originated at a later age, when 
the earth had reached a condition in its development that 
it could sustain life. Every existing species can be traced 
back to a time in the history of the earth, when it had no 
existence. Geology demonstrates a beginning for man, 
therefore he must have been caused to exist. 

What reason demands and geology demonstrates, reve- 
lation proclaims. "In the beginning God created the heaven 
and the earth." "These are the generations of the heavens 
and the earth when they were created, in the day that the 



Introduction 13 

Lord God made the earth and the heavens." "In six days 
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in 
them is." 

Reason demands a beginning, but it does not trace the 
earth back in its history to the real cause of this beginning. 
What the cause of the beginning was, is left as a matter of 
conjecture. And the fact that geology traces the globe back 
to a beginning in a primitive incandescent vapor, does not 
explain the ultimate cause of the present order. The be- 
ginning reaches back from the origin of the earth into the 
limitless depths of eternity. But what was back of the be- 
ginning, without beginning, self existent, and eternal? 
What is the ultimate cause of all things? What is the 
source of man's origin? Revelation does not merely pro- 
claim a beginning, but also the cause of the beginning that 
reason so imperatively demands, and that geology so fully 
demonstrates. The question of man's origin, however, can 
not be settled by proclamation alone. The facts relating to 
his origin must be established by proofs that will meet the 
requirements of reason and satisfy the moral sense. 

There are two current theories that undertake to account 
for the origin of man. One is that of special creation, 
which teaches that man had an independent origin, having 
been created by Almighty God in his own likeness from 
the dust of the ground. The other theory is that of evolu- 
tion, which holds that man had a common origin with the 
lower animals, having been gradually evolved from the 
lowest forms through countless ages by means of resident 
forces, until he reached his present position at the head of 
life; and this theory denies most emphatically that man had 
an independent origin. 

If the theory of special creation is true, man had a he- 
ginning, having been spoken into existence at a definite time 
by divine fiat. If the theory of evolution is true, he had a 



14 The Origin of Man 

beginning, for he is traced back' in the process of his de- 
velopment to a time when the earth was in such a condition 
that life could not exist upon it. Both of these theories are 
agreed, therefore, that, not long ago, comparatively speak- 
ing, the earth was, but man did not inhabit it. The ques- 
tion for our consideration is, How did man come upon the 
earth? Was man a supernatural creation, or was he de- 
veloped by the more gradual process of evolution? Man 
exists, was he spoken into being by divine fiat, or was he 
evolved from simpler and lower forms of life? Is the ex- 
planation of life to be found in the traditions of the past, or 
must it be sought in the philosophy of the present? 

The existence of the universe and the species must be 
accounted for in some way. Did man originate as an event 
or a process? In either case, what was back of the event 
or process? We desire to know, not only how man origi- 
nated, but to know the cause of his origin as well. Grant 
the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent 
God, and either hypothesis may be true. Man could have 
been spoken into existence in the full possession of all his 
powers, in a moment of time, by a single word from the 
Almighty. He could have been, on the other hand, the 
product of minute changes by transmutation from lower 
types of life, consuming untold ages in bringing him to his 
present high state of development. We can not limit the 
Almighty in the method which he might choose to employ 
in the production of man. If man originated by special 
creation, then, it follows that this was the method employed 
in his production. But, on the other hand, if he originated 
by the slower processes of evolution, this was the method 
employed in producing him. Admit the existence of a 
Supreme Being, and it must be conceded that he has equal 
power to make separate creations, or to establish certain 
laws of nature, and leave them to operate through secondary 



Introduction 15 

causes in the production of the human race. There is no 
doubt whatever that God could have employed either of 
these methods in producing man. And no one can dispute 
the soundness of this reasoning. 

All evolutionists are agreed on the method of origin, 
whatever their beliefs may be as to other things. But the 
theistic evolutionists and the materialistic evolutionists dis- 
agree on the real question at issue, that is, the cause of man's 
origin. The one sees in the processes of evolution evidence 
of a divine mind, while the other sees in these processes 
nothing but the operations of the laws of nature. The 
theistic evolutionist and the atheistic evolutionist agree as 
to the facts which relate to man's production, but they differ 
in their interpretation of these facts. The theistic evolu- 
tionist sees back of the process of evolution a divine cause ; 
the atheistic evolutionist sees nothing in the process of evo- 
lution to lead him to believe that there is any higher cause 
than nature itself. Nature is self-sufficient, and there are 
no causes except material causes. The doctrine, as it is 
held by materialists, maintains material causation against 
supernatural causation ; and contends for continuity and 
uniformity of process in nature against break and interven- 
tion. But the theory of evolution, as held by thoroughgo- 
ing evolutionists, who have carried it to its logical con- 
clusion, excludes the possibility of a creation by supernat- 
ural power, by any method, however gradual its process of 
operation. 

The hypothesis of evolution, when carried to its logical 
conclusion by its ablest and most distinguished advocates, 
is diametrically opposed to the theory of special creation as 
it is held by the consistent religionist. The one. makes man 
the offspring of God by creative act; while the other, makes 
him the product of nature through the operation of fixed 
laws. There is a well-defined issue between the two theories 



16 The Origin of Man 

that demands careful consideration from all thoughtful per- 
sons. And any attempt to evade the issue should not be 
countenanced for a single moment. The acceptance of the 
theory of evolution requires not merely a change of opinion 
as to the method of origin, but a change of one's whole view 
of the world and life. The leading evolutionists hold that 
their theory accounts for the universe, the species, and life 
itself, without the necessity of divine intervention. The 
theory of evolution is sufficient in itself to account for all 
things that exist. There is no need whatever for a divine 
First Cause. We must accept their interpretation of the 
theory, and evolution must be met squarely as it has been 
set forth by its ablest and most distinguished advocates. It 
does not meet the exigencies of the case to say that evolu- 
tion was God's method of introducing man into the world. 
The real issue between the two theories must not be evaded 
by compromise. There is not the slightest evidence to show 
that material causation in any way secures order and prog- 
ress. And supernatural causation is by no means incon- 
sistent with uniformity and progress by slow degrees of 
advance. From the bare notion of material causation, we 
can infer nothing as to the mode of its manifestation; nor 
from the bare notion of supernatural causation can we infer 
anything as to the method of its operation. This, there- 
fore, is not a mere question of method, but it is primarily 
a question of cause. It is the question whether man orig- 
inated by an act of special creation, or by the process of 
evolution. It is an unequivocal question of origin. It is 
not a question of how man might have originated, or how 
he ought to have originated, or how he could have orig- 
inated. But it is a plain question of fact, How did he 
originate ? 

The question, however, that seems to be under discussion 
at the present time, is not whether the theory of evolution is 



Introduction 17 

true, but in what form it shall be finally accepted. It is 
taken for granted by most of the popular writers on this 
subject that the theory is true ; and that the only thing that 
remains to be settled is whether it shall finally be received 
in its theistic form, or in its atheistic form. It may be 
thought by some that the discussion has passed entirely be- 
yond the question as to the truth of the theory. But the 
question, as we regard it, is not in what form it shall be 
finally accepted, but whether it shall be accepted in any form 
whatever. It is not what form of the theory is true, but is it 
true at all? Is it necessary for us to accept the theory in 
any form, either in its theistic or atheistic form? This is 
a question that can not be settled by mere authority. The 
origin of man can not be settled ex cathedra either by re- 
ligionists or by evolutionists. 

Those who accept the Bible as a divine revelation may 
contend that the Mosaic account of creation should be ac- 
cepted without question. But this account of creation can 
not be accepted in this way, for there has been formulated 
a plausible theory which claims to account for the origin 
of the inorganic and organic world without divine inter- 
vention. Great weight has been given to this hypothesis 
from the fact that it has been generally accepted by men of 
science. The truth of the theory of special creation has 
been called into question. For this reason, no matter how 
irreverent this may appear to the devout religionist, the 
theory must be put to the test. And if special creation can 
not stand the tests that are applied to similar hypotheses it 
must be abandoned. The sincere religionist regards Moses 
as the mere instrument through whom God revealed the 
eternal truths of creation ; and because he spoke by divine 
inspiration, the religionist thinks that the revelation must 
be accepted without question. But the Mosaic record of 
2 



18 The Origin of Man 

creation must be treated precisely like any other hypothesis 
that undertakes to account for the universe. 

The sincere inquirer after truth must refuse to accept 
dogmas on the authority of any one, whether they be the 
dogmas of scientists or of religionists. We have advanced 
beyond the age when we will accept anything on mere au- 
thority. In this age of enlightenment no one believes any- 
thing because it was formerly regarded as true. The ques- 
tion that is now asked is whether it is reasonable. There 
was a time when men were compelled to assent to a proposi- 
tion held by the Church and believed to be taught in the 
Scriptures; but fortunately for the interest of truth, that 
day has long since passed away. But the truth is endan- 
gered at the present time by a new source of authority. 
Scientists have seemingly usurped the authority that was 
once exercised by theologians. Such is the vital importance 
and the far-reaching results of the teachings of evolution 
that it can not be accepted on mere authority, however able 
it may be, and worthy of our respect. We can not accept 
a theory as true because it is taught by distinguished nat- 
uralists, or because it is currently accepted. 

A person must necessarily be impressed with the learn- 
ing and industry of such scientists as Darwin, Spencer, 
Romanes, Huxley, Tyndall, Haeckel, and other scientists 
of equal note. These men possessed transcendent gifts as 
observers of the phenomena of nature. They gathered to- 
gether a vast amount of data in their chosen fields of re- 
search. The industry and acumen of these men, as revealed 
in their extensive writings, is remarkable indeed. But every 
hypothesis must be tested apart from the intellectual stand- 
ing, the reputation for scholarship, or the religious belief 
of its advocates. It is no proof of the truth of a given theory 
to be able to quote distinguished men's names who have held 
it, and to be able to point out the fact that great scholars 



Introduction 19 

have taught it. It is not infrequently the case that the 
greatest scientists and the ablest scholars are deficient in 
reasoning powers. Tyndall says himself: "Men of science, 
when pursuing a line of investigation to prove a favorite 
theory, once admitting their principles are a logical necessity, 
assume absurd conclusions." There are many men of such 
peculiar type of mind that when dealing with abundant and 
complex data, they substitute their logical deductions for 
scientific facts. It is doubtful whether any other hypothesis 
has been more unfortunate in this respect than that of evo- 
lution. The evolutionary philosophy is a series of logical 
and metaphysical deductions from established scientific facts, 
and its advocates demand that their deductions be received 
with the same authority as the facts of science on which 
they are based. 

The men who have advocated the theory of evolution 
have been eminently fitted for their work as observers of 
nature and collectors of data. But they were not content to 
be mere observers of natural phenomena and collectors of 
data related to these phenomena. They entered the field 
of speculative philosophy, and began to draw their deduc- 
tions from these data which they had so industriously gath- 
ered, and here they revealed themselves to be deficient in 
reasoning powers. Logic deals only with the inferences 
from premises, while reason seeks to ascertain the truth of 
the premises themselves. If there is an error existing in 
the premises, the rigidity of the logic only tends to intensify 
the error. There is such a thing as being logical in the 
statement of the facts, and illogical in the conclusions drawn 
from the facts stated. Not infrequently false conclusions 
have been logically deduced from true premises, hence it 
does not always follow that true premises are sufficient to 
justify the acceptance of the conclusions thai are Logically 
drawn from them. Evolutionists in this way have often be- 



20 The Origin of Man 

come the victims of their own logic. Their conclusions re- 
veal the tyranny to which the mind is subjected whenever 
philosophical deductions from established facts are invested 
with the same authority as the scientific facts from which 
they are deduced. And for this reason, whenever the con- 
clusion is irrational and contrary to the moral sense, it must 
be rejected, no matter how true the premises may be, or 
how logical the process of deduction. The fundamental 
error of evolutionists is in attaching the same importance to 
mere philosophical deductions that they do to demonstrated 
scientific truths. 

We accept the results of the labors of scientific experts 
in their chosen fields of research without question. This 
becomes necessary because laymen can not always test these 
matters for themselves without a great outlay of time and 
means in study and investigation. The evidence of science 
can not all be presented to the laity in relation to any given 
fact, for this would require little less than the presentation 
of the whole of that particular branch of science to which 
this fact is related. For this reason the people are forced to 
accept the results of scientific research. The majority of 
the people, perhaps, do not fully comprehend the astronom- 
ical evidence upon which the predictions of the eclipse of 
the sun are made. But notwithstanding their lack of knowl- 
edge as to just how these predictions are made with such 
accuracy, they accept them as demonstrated by science, and 
never doubt for a moment that an eclipse will occur at a 
given time. 

What science has demonstrated must be received with- 
out question, but what is a mere matter of speculation we 
are under no obligations to accept. The doctrine of evo- 
lution has been received by many because they have been 
led to believe that it has been demonstrated by science, and, 
as a matter of course, the discoveries of science must be ac- 



Introduction 21 

cepted as true. Evolution has been heralded as a universal 
law. And the conception of evolution as an efficient cause 
has been carried into every field of human knowledge. It 
is high time that a halt be called. For already there have 
been too many concessions made to the evolutionary phi- 
losophy. It is unscientific and irrational to contend that 
conclusions are certain which have not been demonstrated 
and are not demonstrable. 

There are two distinct questions involved in the theory 
of evolution — a scientific question, and a philosophical ques- 
tion. In so far as evolution deals with the phenomena of 
nature, it is scientific, but so far as it deals with the deduc- 
tions from these phenomena, it is philosophical. Science, 
properly speaking, does not have anything to do with the 
origin of the earth and life, for it does not deal with origins. 
Science can not go back to origins, for this is beyond its 
legitimate sphere. It deals with the laws and modes that 
relate to phenomena, and must of necessity start with cer- 
tain axioms of unknown origin. Science conducts us to 
ultimate facts, and discovers laws for which it can give no 
explanation. The distinction must be clearly defined be- 
tween what is scientific in the theory of evolution and what 
is merely speculative. Science deals altogether in natural 
phenomena, and points out the laws of development as ob- 
served in nature. It furnishes the data for philosophical 
speculation, but science itself does not speculate. Science 
fails to point out the origin of anything, for it only under- 
takes to show the process through which things pass after 
they have come into existence. The realm of science is 
secondary causes and processes. When we pass beyond 
process and phenomena, we immediately get beyond the 
legitimate dominion of science. The nature of cause is the 
problem of philosophy. Where science ends, philosophy 
begins. The origin of life is not a question of science, but a 



22 The Origin of Man 

problem of philosophy, Evolution is largely a system of 
metaphysical philosophy, rather than a system of science. 
The hypothesis is deductive, and not inductive. Its conclu- 
sions are the result of philosophical speculations, and not of 
scientific observations. Evolution may be a description of 
the order of phenomenal development, or it may be a phil- 
osophical theory of the causes that underlie this develop- 
ment. These two distinct conceptions are seldom made by 
evolutionists. They seem to be unable to grasp the distinc- 
tion between nature as an observed order, and nature as a 
system of causation. 

There is confusion in the minds of evolutionists which 
is revealed in all their writings by the double significance 
they give to the term evolution. The word is employed 
indiscriminately to explain both the cause and the develop- 
ment, which renders the use of the term misleading and de- 
ceptive. As it is used on one page it means a process of 
development, and as it is employed on the next it means 
the cause of the development. And they reason that be- 
cause there is a process of development in nature, that the 
evolution is the cause of the development. Evolutionists 
fail to discriminate between what is scientific and what is 
philosophical in their theory, seemingly having no suspicion 
that both are not identically the same. Scientific facts and 
philosophical speculations, inductive and deductive prob- 
lems, are intermingled in hopeless confusion. Evolution, 
in the scientific sense, carries with it no theory of origins, 
for the question of process is forever distinct from the ques- 
tion of cause. But evolution is made to include processes 
both modal and causal. The first implies development un- 
der adequate causes. The second assumes itself to be a 
cause, which, in the very nature of things, it can not be. 

You are led to believe that the men who accept the 
hypothesis of evolution are sincere in what they have claimed 



Introduction 23 

for their theory ; but that in their constant study and inves- 
tigation of the subject they have, imperceptively to them- 
selves, passed from the firm ground of scientific observa- 
tion to the unstable ground of philosophical speculation. In 
their eagerness to establish their theory they have rushed to 
unwarranted conclusions, and have offered for the truth, 
often that which they hoped was true. The wish has been 
father to the thought, and they have proclaimed as true much 
for which they have had no positive proof. And for this 
reason it will soon be necessary to reconstruct the entire evo- 
lutionary philosophy in order to bring it into harmony with 
demonstrated truth. 

The Christian scholar has often been held up to ridicule 
for rejecting the teachings of scientists. And much capital 
has been made out of the supposed conflict between religion 
and science to the detriment of the cause of religion. But 
the men of science are as much to blame for this supposed 
conflict as the teachers of religion. When a trained theolo- 
gian reads the works of men who claim to be scientists, and 
finds that they make no distinction between the observed 
facts of nature and their deductions from these facts, both 
being put forth as the results of science and of equal au- 
thority, is it strange that he should refuse to receive not only 
their speculations, but, sometimes, even the facts on which 
they are based ? When he sees that they are seeking to sub- 
stantiate their working theories by the aid of speculative de- 
ductions, the fallacy of which he readily recognizes, there 
is nothing remarkable in the fact that he rejects their specu- 
lations. But the evolutionists are as severe in their denun- 
ciations of those who refuse to accept their deductions from 
scientific facts as they are of those who refuse to accept the 
facts themselves. This is because they make no distinction 
between their observations and their deductions from them. 
And this is why the religionist is often accused of being 



24 The Origin of Man 

narrow and bigoted, when in reality he is open to conviction, 
but demands more convincing proofs than metaphysical 
speculations before he abandons his cherished beliefs. 

Evolution in the sense of the simple description of an 
observed order in nature is a statement of process, but it is 
entirely silent about causation. The process of develop- 
ment is compatible with any kind of causation. The con- 
ception of a process of development in nature lies within 
the field of science, and may be proved or disproved by 
science. But where the doctrine transcends this limit, and 
claims to give a theory of the causes at work in nature, it 
then becomes philosophical. Evolution is neither a con- 
trolling law, nor a producing cause, but is simply a descrip- 
tion of a phenomenal order of development. The con- 
clusions of evolutionists are largely the result of specula- 
tion, and not of observation. They pass skillfully from in- 
duction to deduction, and seem to think that every one 
should accept their deductions on the same basis as their 
inductions. The deductions of speculators can not be re- 
ceived as the result of scientific observation. There should 
be a careful distinction made between what is the result of 
scientific observation, and what is the result of philosophical 
speculation. What is the result of the former must be re- 
ceived as true, but what is the result of the latter may be 
accepted or rejected according as it meets the demands of 
reason. For the phenomena of the universe we must look 
to science, but for the origin of the universe we must look 
to philosophy. 

The theory of evolution has been extended from its 
proper limits in the development of natural phenomena into 
a theory of the origin of the universe, then to the origin of 
life, and finally to the origin of the mind itself. The origin 
of these phenomena is a problem for philosophy alone. On 
this question of origin, science, in its proper sphere, has 



Introduction 25 

absolutely nothing to say. The theory of evolution has been 
set forth as a profoundly scientific hypothesis. While it 
is true that scientific experts have had much to say in the 
interests of evolution, yet this fact does not by any means 
make its philosophical deductions the result of scientific ob- 
servation. It is necessary to distinguish carefully between 
fact and the explanation of fact in the study of this subject. 
Whatever men of science may teach in the way of philosoph- 
ical speculations, science does not teach that evolution goes 
any further than its scientific evidence carries it. The ex- 
tension of evolution as a science from its legitimate field in 
the phenomena of nature into a theory of the origin of the 
present order, is an act for which science furnishes no war- 
rant whatever. Professor Tyndall says : "There ought to 
be a clear distinction made between science in the state of 
hypothesis and science in the state of fact : inasmuch as it 
is still in the hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought 
to fall upon the theory of evolution." And this applies 
with equal force to the theory of evolution at the present 
time as when first spoken, for it is still in the hypothetical 
state. Science should be confined strictly within the limits 
of the observed facts, and every theory should be avoided 
that tends to mere speculation. What the scientist should 
do is to note precisely what has occurred in nature, and re- 
port accurately on this without addition or subtraction. And 
special care should be taken against speculating on the facts 
in order to substantiate any theory. There should be no 
substitution of a hypothesis for scientific fact. And there 
should be no setting forth of philosophical speculations for 
demonstrated science. 

One of the most deplorable things in this discussion is 
the readiness with which scientists have accepted the hy- 
pothesis of evolution as an established fact and taught it as 
such, when all the claims of wisdom and candor would re- 



26 The Origin of Man 

quire it to be held as a hypothesis yet to be proved. They 
unfortunately abandon the position of strict scientific inves- 
tigation, and become mere dogmatic enunciators. They 
speculate on the facts of science, and then assume these 
speculations to be of equal authority with the facts that 
have been demonstrated by science. They now assume that 
these speculations are scientific facts as well authenticated 
as the actual facts of science; and then contend that the 
conclusions at which they have arrived must be accepted as 
the results of scientific research. The scientist and careful 
investigator ceases just here, and the speculator and theorist 
begins. And unfortunately for the cause of truth, the 
scientist fails to recognize the fact that he has become a 
speculator. He imagines that he is still in the bright sun- 
light of scientific investigation, when he is hopelessly lost 
in the dense fog of philosophical speculation. 

There is a process of evolution in nature. And there is 
no objection to the use of the term, if it is understood to 
mean the development of that which has already an ex- 
istence. The evolution to which objection is raised is that 
which holds to the spontaneous development of something 
out of nothing. An evolution of atoms without a guiding 
mind into all the complex forms of nature both organic and 
inorganic. There is an evolution — a process of develop- 
ment — not a universal law, but rather a general principle. 
The acorn evolves into the oak. The child evolves from an 
embryo into a man. But the acorn contains the oak latently 
in all its forms and parts ; and the embryo possesses in itself 
the possibility of all the members, powers, and faculties that 
reach their maturity in adulthood. Evolution takes place 
only where there is something existing in the germ, which 
by development becomes what it was already potentially. 
In the realm of life evolution has its place between origin 
and maturity, and leads from the first to the last. The evo- 



Introduction 27 

lution unfolds all the fullness of life and being of which the 
individual plant and animal are already possessed. The 
possibility of the evolution is in the germ cell, a part of its 
inherent nature, a function of its life. The evolution is the 
outgrowth, the unfolding, the manifestation of the life latent 
in the germ. Evolution is a process of development that 
brings to perfection the powers that belong to the inherent 
nature of the individual plant or animal. There can be no 
evolution where there is no life. There is growth by ac- 
cretion, when sediment is deposited at the bottom of the 
ocean, but that is not growth in the strictest sense of the 
word, which is by expansion from the development of the 
life principle. If the phenomena of growth could be iden- 
tified with the accumulations of geological deposits, a strong 
argument could be made in favor of evolution and against 
special creation. But the earth, strictly speaking, does not 
grow by the accumulations of the deposits that are washed 
down from the mountains and hills, and are carried by the 
streams into the sea. 

The advocates of evolution as a rule make no attempt 
to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists take for granted 
the universe in nebulous form and life in its simplest forms. 
And with these assumptions they teach that the existing 
earth and the various forms of life were evolved from primi- 
tive nebula and the lowest forms of life by the accumulative 
effects of innumerable small variations. Evolution has to 
do only with the process of the development, but its advo- 
cates teach in one breath that it is a process, and in the next 
they make it the cause of the process. The cause of the 
process of development must always be distinguished from 
the development itself. Evolution can take place only where 
there is something to be evolved, and something out of which 
to evolve it, and with adequate causes for the development. 
These facts are constantly overlooked by the advocates of 



28 The Origin of Man 

this hypothesis, and evolution is spoken of as if it were an 
efficient cause, which in the very nature of the case it can 
not be. There is an efficient cause — the agent that produces 
the change; a material cause — that out of which anything 
is produced ; a process — the method by which anything is 
produced; and a product — that which is produced by the 
efficient cause out of the material cause by means of the 
process. The true cause must be sought back of the prod- 
uct, back of the process, back of the material cause, in the 
efficient cause. The efficient cause must be adequate to the 
effect produced, and is the explanation of both the process 
and the product. The material cause should not be con- 
founded with the efficient cause, and the process should not 
be metamorphosed into a cause of that which is produced. 
There must of necessity be back of the process and above 
the material cause an efficient cause, which is the explana- 
tion of the process and the true cause of the product. A 
process can not be an effect and an efficient cause at the 
same time. Evolution as a process of development can not 
be the cause of the product. Evolution assigns no adequate 
cause for the development, or the uniform direction it is 
supposed to follow. There is something in nature that is 
the basis of the development, and without this to start with 
there can be no evolution. Given this impulse to begin with, 
and after that the development may be accounted for by 
evolution; providing sufficient energy was furnished at the 
beginning, or was supplied along the course of the develop- 
ment as needed, in order to keep up the development. If 
evolution is true, nature must be regarded as a huge time- 
piece, that was wound up once for all at the beginning, or 
must have been wound repeatedly in order to keep it going. 
The laws of nature are not powers within themselves. 
These laws are merely the manner in which force is discov- 
ered to operate. What we call natural laws are nothing 



Introduction 29 

more than our own generalizations. Scientists make use of 
figurative language, when they speak of evolution as a pro- 
ducing cause; for it is merely a description of a mode in 
which things are observed to act. The laws of nature are 
spoken of as if they had power within themselves to produce 
changes in natural phenomena. But law in itself has abso- 
lutely no power to cause to exist, or to restrain from be- 
coming. The law of evolution is only the modus operandi 
of nature. When evolutionists talk of the universal law 
of evolution, as if it had power to produce change, or cause 
to exist, they have forsaken the province of scientific can- 
dor, and have crossed over into that of philosophical dog- 
matism. If we are to be given the results of speculative 
philosophy, that fact should be clearly set forth; but the 
advocates of evolution ought not to profess to be following 
the leadership of scholars and scientific candor, when in 
reality they are dealing in imagination and philosophical 
dogmatism. 

That there is a law of evolution operating in nature we 
do not question for a moment. But there are other laws that 
are as positive factors in producing changes in nature as 
evolution. There are three great laws that operate in na- 
ture, and produce the changes we observe taking place in 
natural phenomena. These three laws are revolution, evo- 
lution, and degeneration. These are general laws of nature, 
and can not be regarded as really universal laws, because 
they limit the operations of each other. The first law we 
call revolution to indicate the part it plays in nature, and 
to distinguish it from the law of evolution. The law of 
revolution is observed to operate in the origin of things, the 
law of evolution in their development, and the law of de- 
generation in their destruction. Speaking now in a meta- 
phorical sense of these laws, as if they had power in them- 
selves to produce changes, or cause to exist, the law of revo- 



30 The Origin of Man 

lution originates, the law of evolution develops, and the law 
of degeneration destroys. The laws of revolution and de- 
generation have been largely ignored by evolutionists, and 
their operations have been attributed to evolution. By at- 
tributing the changes that have been brought about by the 
laws of revolution and degeneration to the law of evolution, 
it has been made to appear that there was no other im- 
portant law operating in nature. And evolution has been 
proclaimed as the universal law of nature. Evolution is only 
one of the constituent factors in producing changes in na- 
ture, and is not the primary cause of the changes in natural 
phenomena. Evolution never produces anything of itself, 
it only develops that which has been brought into existence 
by revolution. Where revolution ceases, evolution begins; 
and where evolution ends, degeneration begins. Evolution 
is neither the sole law, nor even the most important law of 
nature. The law of revolution has played an equal, if not 
a more important part, in the production of the present or- 
der of nature. Evolution has a larger field of operation in 
development; but revolution performs a more important 
part in that it has to do with the origin of things, and not 
merely with their after development. Origin, development, 
and degeneration are three distinct ideas, but they are con- 
stantly confused in the writings of evolutionists. And the 
term evolution is used indifferently to express all the 
changes in nature, whether they are in the nature of origin, 
development, or degeneration. These three distinct kinds 
of changes are confounded in the discussion of this hypothe- 
sis, and the term evolution is freely extended to things 
that are entirely different from each other. The evolution- 
ists, having merged all these distinct kinds of change into 
one, forget the fact that they are not law enactors, but law 
discoverers; and assert that the universe with all its teem- 
ing forms of life came into existence through the opera- 
tions of the law of evolution. 



Introduction 31 

The theory of evolution is merely a working hypothesis ; 
and should not be transferred from the field of inquiry to 
that of fact, until it has been proven to be an established 
fact. To assert, as is so frequently done, that evolution is 
a proven result of science, is misleading-. It is a necessity 
of the human mind to theorize, but it is disastrous to sub- 
stitute working theories for demonstrated truth. The adop- 
tion of a working theory is necessary in order to learn the 
truth ; but the working theory must not be accepted as true 
before every fact that is in any way related to it is satis- 
factorily explained. A theory, however promising, must 
be brought face to face with the facts, and if it fails to ex- 
plain the facts it must be rejected. The theory must be 
fully verified in every particular, for without this it is noth- 
ing more than guess-work. And arguments should never 
be built on a mere working theory, as if it had been demon- 
strated. 

Evolution and special creation are simply working 
theories by which it is undertaken to account for the uni- 
verse and life. Thoroughgoing evolutionists hold that the 
laws of nature account for the universe and life without the 
necessity of divine intervention. The special creationists 
contend that Almighty God brought all things animate and 
inanimate into existence by direct intervention. And as 
they both claim to be the sole explanation of the origin of 
all things, we must weigh the evidence for and against them. 
This must be done impartially, without fear or favor. The 
same tests should be applied to both hypotheses without dis- 
tinction. But that both theories have been treated impar- 
tially is by no means true. For example, Spencer says : 
"Just as the supposition that races of organisms have been 
specially created is discredited by its origin ; so, conversely, 
the supposition that races of organisms have been evolved 
is credited by its origin. Instead of being a conception sug- 
gested and accepted when mankind were profoundly lg- 



32 The Origin of Man 

norant, it is a conception born in times of comparative en- 
lightenment. . . . Thus the derivation of this modern 
hypothesis is as favorable as that of the ancient hypothesis 
is unfavorable."* The tendency to generalize characterizes 
the writers of evolution. They find that some ancient 
hypotheses were false, and they draw the conclusion that 
all ancient theories are false. But this is an illogical and 
manifestly irrational conclusion. What has been held as 
true should not be rejected until it has been proven false 
and the true theory established in its place. A hypothesis 
that has survived so many conflicts in the field of contro- 
versy, as that of special creation, must have something to 
recommend it. The fact that it has survived, while other 
theories have perished, is presumptive proof, at least, that 
it has something to commend it to our consideration except 
the mere fact of its antiquity. According to the teachings 
of evolutionists, it must even be regarded as an evidence of 
its truth that it has survived through all these ages of ad- 
verse criticism that have been waged against it. Any one 
who believes as thoroughly in the "survival of the fittest" 
as Mr. Spencer does, ouglit not to have rejected this ancient 
hypothesis of special creation, lest in doing so he discredit 
his doctrine of the "survival of the fittest." If this ancient 
theory of special creation is not true, it is a striking example 
of the survival of the unfit. A theory that is accepted as 
true must be founded on observation and be supported by 
the facts. And a hypothesis is not to be rejected because 
it is old, or to be accepted because it is new ; but must be 
accepted or rejected, according as it conforms to the given 
facts in the case. 

The hypotheses of evolution and special creation, how- 
ever, can not both be true. And the impossibility of either 



'Principles of Biology, Vol. I, p. 346. 



Introduction 33 

theory being true can not be proved. Simply for this reason, 
that you can not prove a negative. Special creationists have 
sought diligently to establish their hypothesis by trying to 
prove the impossibility of evolution. Evolutionists have 
challenged the opposers of their theory to disprove evolu- 
tion. And religionists, with less wisdom than zeal, have 
accepted the challenge, but they have signally failed in the 
attempt, because they have undertaken the impossible. It 
is manifestly unfair and illogical to call upon special crea- 
tionists to prove a negative. When evolutionists assert that 
the organic world has been evolved from the inorganic, it is 
right to demand the proof of the assertion, and it is their 
duty to furnish it. And evolutionists have no right what- 
ever to take the position that their theory can not be dis- 
proved, and place the burden of proof upon special creation- 
ists. The theory of special creation being already in the 
field and generally accepted, the burden of proof rests on 
evolutionists. 

Mere negative reasoning, which points out the weak- 
ness of a hypothesis without establishing any positive facts, 
will not satisfy the sincere inquirer after truth. Negative 
arguments have their value in revealing the weak points 
and showing the fallacies of a theory; but in order to con- 
vince the mind there must accompany them the demon- 
stration of positive truth. 

Writers for special creation, to a great extent, have failed 
to produce any positive arguments in support of their theory, 
and consequently have weakened their cause. Almost all 
the arguments for special creation have been based on 
teleology, and have been addressed to the reason. It is true 
that the arguments from design are convincing, and have 
never been satisfactorily answered by materialists; but this 
method of argument is abstract and speculative, and it lias 
been made to appear that evolution is supported by the C0n- 
3 



. 34 The Origin of Man 

crete arguments of demonstrated science. The method of 
proof employed by evolutionists has carried with it great 
weight, and many doubtless have been convinced of the 
truth of the hypothesis, because it seemed to be based on 
demonstrated science. The almost exclusive use of the de- 
sign argument that has been relied upon to substantiate the 
hypothesis of special creation has no doubt prejudiced many 
against the theory, because it appeared that it had nothing 
to support it except these abstract arguments. In this dis- 
cussion we shall undertake not only to present negative 
proof, showing that evolution can not be true; but shall 
present positive arguments in favor of special creation, 
drawing upon science for demonstrated truths which tend to 
establish this hypothesis as the method by which the organic 
and inorganic world was produced. 

Theories are formulated to aid us in ascertaining the 
truth. Evolution and special creation are merely working 
theories. And it should be clearly understood that neither 
theory admits of positive proof, except such as may amount 
to a moral demonstration. The hypothesis that seems to 
be the more rational we are entitled to suppose is the true 
one. The rationality of a hypothesis is its fitness to be ac- 
cepted, because it has in its favor the strongest probabilities. 
The rationality of any theory is always less than an abso- 
lutely certain test of truth. The limited range of our facul- 
ties prevents a full view of all the elements that enter into 
any question of probability. Special creation and evolution 
admit of no proof but that which amounts to a moral demon- 
stration by means of the prepondering weight of probability. 
The evidence that is adduced is merely a probability of a 
lower or a higher degree, and never rises to an absolute 
certainty. Inductive inferences are not absolutely certain, 
but are merely probable truths. They can not be demon- 
strated like a mathematical problem, but are quite sufficient 



Introduction 35 

to satisfy the mind. These hypotheses of special creation 
and evolution are only probable conjectures. And what we 
desire to learn is which one of them ought to be accepted as 
true, because it has in its favor the highest attainable amount 
of probabilities, which renders it to us a moral certainty. 
These theories are deduced from many distinct and separate 
facts, and hence depend somewhat on circumstantial evi- 
dence. The question to be determined by investigation is 
whether the circumstantial evidence which tends to estab- 
lish one hypothesis in our convictions is stronger than the 
circumstantial evidence that is adduced to support the other 
theory. Nothing must be taken for granted but every fact 
must be thoroughly established by proof. And the prepon- 
derance of evidence must be such that the conviction will 
be forced upon us that the hypothesis we accept is true. 
The lack of evidence does not disprove the possibility of a 
given theory being true ; but the lack of evidence should re- 
strain us from accepting a mere working theory as estab- 
lished. The truth of a theory must rest on the soundness of 
the arguments by which it is supported. And these argu- 
ments must be tested by the rules that govern sound reason- 
ing. And the theories must stand or fall according as they 
conform to the known facts. The hypothesis that we ac- 
cept must account for the origin of the universe, the species, 
and man by proofs that satisfy the rules of evidence by 
which our beliefs are determined. And a hypothesis must 
be rejected if it is contradicted by a single well-established 
fact.* 

Theories are permissible as furnishing possible explana- 
tions of known facts; but they ought not to be assumed as 
themselves facts, and then made to regulate the whole dis- 
cussion as though they had been clearly demons! rated. But 



''Creation or Evolution. — Curtis. 



36 The Origin of Man 

the hypothesis of evolution has been assumed to be true; 
and, then, the evidence based on its truth has been used to 
establish the truth of the theory itself. And it has even 
been claimed that the only way to establish the truth of 
the theory is to first reach the conviction that is true. Spen- 
cer says: "Before it can be ascertained how organized be- 
ings have gradually evolved, there must be reached the con- 
viction that they have been gradually evolved." This is the 
method by which all the systems of error have been foisted 
upon the world in the past; and which is now being used 
so successfully in propagating these so-called philosophies 
and systems of error that are winning so many converts in 
every part of the land. If the conviction is first reached that 
any given theory is true, no matter how absurd and un- 
reasonable it may be, its truth can be established to the en- 
tire satisfaction of the one who has been thus convinced. 
Men have looked within them, closing their eyes to the ex- 
ternal world, and have succeeded in proving to themselves 
that there is no material world. And, on the other hand, 
they have looked without, closing their eyes to the world 
that is within them, and have come to the conclusion that 
there is nothing in this universe but matter. If we first 
form our theory, then convince ourselves of its truth, we can 
establish any theory to our entire satisfaction. It is neces- 
sary to formulate a theory of how organized beings orig- 
inated before we can ascertain how they originated, but 
there should be no conviction reached until the evidence is 
thoroughly examined. And, if we really desire to learn the 
truth, we must lay aside our preconceived notions ; and ex- 
amine the evidence in the case without prejudice, and with 
the determination to accept the results of the investigation 
whatever they may be. 

We must carefully weigh the evidence adduced for these 
theories, and accept the hypothesis that has the preponder- 



Introduction 37 

ance of evidence in its favor. Which one of these theories 
is supported by the scientific facts and substantiated by 
sound reasoning? Does the theory of evolution or that of 
special creation possess the elements of supreme probability 
which alone can establish its truth ? 

The theory that is finally accepted as fully demonstrated 
must establish three important facts. First, it must locate 
the cause of all natural phenomena, prove that the cause ex- 
ists, and that it is the true cause of the phenomena ; second, 
it must establish the fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 
the cause is competent to produce the results achieved, and 
able to supply the means necessary for their achievement; 
and, third, it must further show that no other cause is com- 
petent to produce these phenomena, for, if any other cause 
accounts for them equally well, the theory falls short of 
demonstration.* In the chapters that follow we propose to 
test the hypotheses of evolution and special creation by these 
three rules, and the theory that meets these conditions we 
shall accept as the true explanation of the origin of the uni- 
verse, the species, and man. 



^Origin of Species. — Huxley. 



Part I 



EVOLUTION 

39 



"Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissi- 
pation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, 
incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and 
during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transforma- 
tion." — Spencer. 

"Evolution is a continuous progressive change, according to 
certain laws, by means of resident forces." — Le Conte. 

"Thirty years ago many scientists, and all but a few theologians, 
believed that all the species of animals came into existence inde- 
pendently and by direct creative fiat. Now there are very few men 
of scientific attainments, few even of our religious thinkers, who 
do not believe in the gradual evolution of one species from another, 
and that even Man is to be included — physically at least — in the cate- 
gory of those creatures who have developed from lower orders by 
'descent and gradual modification.' It would seem at this point of 
time as impossible to resist the cogency of the scientific argument 
in this direction, and keep back the advancing tide of Evolutionary 
thought with the besom of a literalistic interpretation of Scripture, 
as it was for Dame Partington, in Sydney Smith's story, to repel the 
inroads of the Atlantic Ocean with her mop." — Griffith- J ones. 

"But it is time we all understood how finally at variance with 
the heart of Christian faith and hope is any doctrine of evolution 
that views the whole of human nature as the product of 'continuous 
creation,' — as merely the last term in a process of transmissive 
causation. The product of such a process could not be morally free 
nor, consequently, morally responsible. It must needs be merely a 
mass of 'inherited tendency;' and, howsoever fair its effect might 
appear, no life of genuine dutifulness, no life of goodness freely 
chosen, could enter into its being." — Howison. 



40 



EVOLUTION 

T7 VOLUTION is frequently spoken of as the "new 
philosophy." But evolution as a philosophy, how- 
ever, is very far from being* new. Its teachings are but 
varying expressions of the more ancient philosophies 
taught by the philosophers of the remote ages of the 
past. But evolution, as it is set forth in its present scien- 
tific form, is of comparatively recent origin. The first 
record of evolution in its new form is in 1748, when a 
Frenchman, by the name of De Maillet, advanced the 
theory that plants and animals were not special creations ; 
but were the spontaneously modified forms of nature. 
The times were not yet ripe for such a radical theory; 
and, consequently, it attracted very little attention, even 
among naturalists. 

Lamarck, another distinguished French naturalist, in 
1808, taught the doctrine of '"Transmutation of the 
Species ;" and was the first man whose deductions on the 
subject excited much notice. He became convinced from 
his study of animal forms, on account of the similarity of 
structure between them, that one animal had passed into 
another; and that the lower forms of life had been trans- 
muted into the higher. He contended that all the species 
including man, had descended from other species. And 
he called attention to the probability that all the changes 
in the inorganic, as well as the organic world, were the 
result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. 

41 



42 The Origin of Man 

While recognizing the influence of the physical con- 
ditions of life and the crossings of already existing forms, 
he attributed the transmutation in animals chiefly to de- 
sire and inherited tendency. The giraffe, for example, 
was at first an animal with a short neck, but by reaching 
up to feed on the leaves of trees in times of drouth, its 
neck became gradually lengthened. Water birds, in a 
similar way, gradually increased the length of their necks 
and legs. The swan once had a short neck, but by reach- 
ing down to secure food at the bottom of streams its neck 
finally reached its present proportions. The crane was 
formerly a bird with short legs, but by wading in water 
of increasing depth in search of food its legs were grad- 
ually lengthened. 

But it was not until a half century later, however, that 
the theory of evolution was successfully launched. In 
the year 1848, Charles Darwin, a naturalist of extensive 
knowledge and indefatigable research, published his work, 
"The Origin of Species," which has been regarded by 
some as the greatest work of the past century. He re- 
jected the idea advanced by Lamarck as to the cause of 
the transmutation of the species; and taught that the 
diversified forms of life were evolved out of the lower 
and simpler structures by a process which he called "nat- 
ural selection." He inferred from his study of plants 
and animals under domestication that the changes which 
had taken place under artificial selection were similar to 
the changes that had taken place in nature under natural 
selection. Instead of the necks and legs of birds and 
beasts being produced in the manner indicated by La- 
marck, they were the result of natural selection. In the 
time of drouth long-necked animals subsisted on the 



Evolution 43 

leaves of trees, and birds with long necks and legs by 
reason of this advantage secured food in deeper water. 
The animals and birds that possessed these advantages 
survived the drouth and propagated their species, while 
those that lacked these advantages all perished. These 
peculiarities became hereditary, and finally, by means of 
natural selection and the survival of the fittest, the giraffe 
and the swan, the heron and the crane, were produced in 
their present form. Darwin offered to the world in his 
principle of natural selection what purported to be the 
final solution of the problem of the origin of life. He 
taught that at first there were probably a few simple 
forms into which the Creator breathed the breath of life, 
but that the species, as we now know them, were not 
brought into existence by special acts of creation. The 
disciples of Darwin, as is usually the case with the fol- 
lowers of some great teacher, have carried the theory fur- 
ther than their master, and have rejected this first act 
of the creation of a few low forms as unnecessary. 

The hypothesis of evolution has assumed various 
forms. In fact there has been little uniformity among 
its adherents. The theory itself, it might be said, has 
been in a state of transition, now taking one form, and 
then assuming another. Evolutionists may be divided 
into three schools, according to the peculiarities of their 
teachings. There is uniformity of belief among the dif- 
ferent schools as to the fact of evolution, but there is no 
uniformity as to the exact methods of its operations, es- 
pecially, as to the beginning of its processes. 

Agnostic evolutionists, of which school Herbert Spen- 
cer is the most distinguished representative, while they 
accept the theory as it is otherwise held by the majority 



44 The Origin of Man 

of its adherents, yet they contend that back of the phe- 
nomena of nature there is an infinite and eternal energy 
from which all things proceed. But they hold that this 
eternal energy, which is the explanation of all natural 
phenomena, is utterly unknown and unknowable. 

Monistic evolutionists carry the theory to its logical 
conclusion ; and not only reject an act of creation for the 
lowest forms of life, but also reject the idea of there be- 
ing any unknown energy back of nature. They claim 
that all the phenomena of nature are produced by mechan- 
ical causes, and not by prearranged and purposive causes. 
Matter itself without life evolved life, and from this ani- 
mated matter the various forms of life have been slowly 
developed. Everything in the universe, animated and 
inanimated, is the product of the operations of blind 
chance. There is no intelligence, no will, no energy, 
above the mechanical forces, that in any way conditions 
the forces and operations of nature. "All the different 
forms of organisms," says Haeckel, "which people are 
inclined to look upon as the products of creative power, 
acting for a definite purpose, we, accepting the theory 
of selection, can conceive as necessary productions of nat- 
ural selection working without a purpose." 

Theistic evolutionists hold to the theory as to the 
methods of its operations in producing the universe and 
life, but attribute the cause of the development to a su- 
preme First Cause. The first animal, so to speak, was 
God's vicegerent in creating all other animals, with each 
variation and every specific change, until the highest form 
of ape diverged into the lowest form of man. After the 
first act of creation, God looks on as a disinterested party, 
while evolution. works out his plans and purposes in the 



Evolution 45 

universe. There has been an attempt made, recently, to 
modify this objectionable view of the theory, which makes 
God an impassive spectator, while evolution works out 
his purposes. And the Almighty is represented as con- 
tinually pouring his divine energies into living forms, 
and carrying them forward to further development. This 
is a kind of refined pantheism, which does not quite iden- 
tify God with everything that exists, but makes his ac- 
tual presence and energy in nature the cause of the pro- 
cess of evolution.* 

It is of vital importance to this discussion that the 
theory of evolution as it is defined by its exponents be 
clearly stated, and its significance fully comprehended by 
the reader. "Evolution is an integration of matter and 
a concomitant dissipation of motion, during which mat- 
ter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a 
definite, coherent heterogeneity." This is a definition that 
by no means clearly defines evolution, but we gather some- 
thing of the meaning intended from these ambiguous and 
high-sounding terms. Its meaning is something like this : 
Evolution brings matter from an unstable, widely dif- 
fused condition into a relatively stable and complex whole, 
in which process there is an expenditure of motion. And 
we gather further from the definition that evolution is 
a process of development which is always from the in- 
definite to the definite, from the incoherent to the coher- 
ent, from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from 
the simple to the complex, and from the low to the high. 
The evolution is from the homogeneous nebula to the 
heterogeneous world; from the simple cell to the complex 



*Evolution and Man. Conley. 



46 The Origin of Man 

animal; from the lowest form of life at the beginning 
through every form of animated being until man is 
reached, the highest form of life on earth; from the 
family to the clan ; from the clan to the tribe ; and from 
the tribe to the nation. The organic and inorganic worlds 
have developed by a regular and orderly sequence from 
the simple to the more complex forms, and from the lower 
to the higher forms. Evolution presents nature as a 
serial of items arranged in a succession from the least 
up to the greatest. Under no circumstances whatever 
can the development be reversed, and proceed downward 
from the complex to the simple, and from the high to 
the low. It is a progressive upward change. Degenera- 
tion under evolution is a contradiction of terms. Evolu- 
tion can neither go backward nor downward. It is in- 
variably a development from the crude to the refined, 
from the imperfect to the perfect, from the simple struc- 
ture to the complex arrangement of parts, and from the 
lowly organic beings to the higher grades of organisms. 
"Evolution is a continuous progressive change, ac- 
cording to certain laws, and by means of resident forces." 
Evolution is a continuous development of material forms, 
organic and inorganic. Permanent progressive change 
is a fundamental principle of evolution. There 
have been no breaks whatever in the process 
from its incipiency in the first germ cell up 
to the development of man. Gradually during un- 
numbered ages the higher forms of life have succeeded 
the lower forms in an ever-ascending scale. There has 
been an unbroken chain of lives from the lowest forms of 
life up to the highest. New forms have been evolved out 
of existing forms, and have not been produced by miracu- 



Evolution 47 

lous breaks such as the theory of special creation pre- 
supposes. And all this continuous development, mark 
you, is by means of resident forces, and not by some power 
outside of nature. The phrase "by means of resident 
forces" can not be understood to mean that God is con- 
tinually pouring his divine energies into existing forms 
and in this way causes them to develop into higher forms. 
Whatever its author may have meant, the phrase must be 
understood to mean that the evolution of the forms of 
life takes place wholly by means of the forces already 
resident in existing forms which had been imparted to 
them at the beginning of their career. 

There is entire conformity among evolutionists on 
these fundamental principles of their theory. It matters 
not how widely they may differ as to the cause back of 
the evolution, they are all agreed that evolution is a con- 
tinuous progressive change from the simple to the com- 
plex. They agree that the evolution is by means of resi- 
dent forces, but they differ as to the source from whence 
the forces are derived. The thorough-going evolution- 
ists are materialists, and do not believe that there are any 
other causes than material causes. The agnostics and 
the theists are not very far apart in their position on the 
ultimate cause of the evolution. The agnostics believe in 
an eternal energy back of nature which is the explanation 
of the present order. The theist believes in the existence 
of Almighty God, who has given an existence to all 
things, but that evolution has been the met hod he has 
employed in producing them. Rut these causes operate 
about in the same manner. The energy, whether divine 
or eternal, resides within and not apart from that which 
is developed. The evolution is continuous, it is progress- 



48 The Origin of Man 

ive, and it is by means of resident forces. We accept 
these definitions of the theory of evolution as they are 
given to us by its advocates. And in this discussion we 
shall adhere strictly to the doctrine as it is defined by 
evolutionists themselves. And, further, we shall insist 
that evolutionists shall also adhere to the theory as they 
have defined it. There must be no playing fast and loose 
with the term in order to make out a case, or evade a 
difficulty. It can not be made to include a retrograde 
movement at one stage of the development, and a sudden 
cataclysmic change at another stage. The theory as it 
is set forth by its advocates means a progressive develop- 
ment by slow degrees of change extending throughout 
endless years of time. And it must be confined strictly 
within these limits that have been marked out for it by 
evolutionists themselves. If it can be shown that the 
changes in nature have not been continuous, have not al- 
ways been progressive, and have not been without break, 
evolution can not be substantiated. 

According to evolution the universe is the result of 
an immense number of changes constituting a progression 
that is something like the unfolding of the plant from the 
seed. A plant comes into existence by a gradual process 
of change. From a simple beginning in the seed, it 
slowly expands into something more and more complex. 
The seed is without organs and has scarcely any distinc- 
tion of parts, but the fully developed plant has roots, 
stem, branches, leaves, and blossom. The plant differs 
immeasurably from the seed in structure, form, size, 
color, and chemical composition. There is no visible re- 
semblance between the seed before it is placed in the 
ground and the plant after it has reached maturity. And 



Evolution 49 

the earth, as it were, is but a plant in the great garden of 
worlds. Its development until life appears is like the 
growth of the plant till the bud appears. The appear- 
ance and gradual swelling of the bud is like the appear- 
ance and gradual unfolding of the earth's life. The ap- 
pearance of man is the final opening of the bud to dis- 
close the beauty and fragrance of the flower. The earth 
has reached its present condition by age-long develop- 
ment from a primitive nebulous condition that bears no 
more resemblance to its present form than the seed does 
to the mature plant. The earth revolved in space for 
myriads of ages before it was fitted for habitation. It 
slowly formed itself into a suitable dwelling place for 
living beings. There was the formation of seas and con- 
tinents, mountains and valleys, lakes and rivers, plants 
and animals, preparatory to the coming of man. In the 
course of the earth's development, however, there came 
a time when the conditions were favorable, and life ap- 
peared; but in its lowest forms, forms so low that they 
could scarcely be distinguished as either plant or animal. 
And from these lowly beginnings, life unfolded along 
with the developing earth into higher and higher forms, 
until man appeared as the crowning work of evolution. 
The belief of the evolutionists is aptly and beautifully ex- 
pressed in the language of the poet : 

"I, too, rest in faith ; 
That man's perfection is the crowning flower 
Toward which the urgent sap in life's groat tree 
Is pressing ; seen in puny blossom now, 
But in the world's great to-morrow to expand 
With broadest petal and with deepest glow." 



50 The Origin of Man 

At a certain definite time in the history of the earth's 
development, the primordial cell, the parent of all other 
organisms, came into existence out of inorganic matter. 
The earth having been produced and fitted for habitation, 
then matter organized itself along finer and higher lines. 
Its operations became more intricate until, at length, 
under favorable conditions, from inorganic matter, the 
living cell originated. The primitive cell was evolved 
gradually from matter by laws inherent in matter. After 
the first step in the organization of the protoplasmic cell, 
all else followed by natural law without purpose and with- 
out design. For, the cell having been once evolved from 
non-living matter, in the course of many centuries it pro- 
duced plants and animals, beginning with the lowest 
forms, then producing higher and richer varieties. In 
all probability the cell developed first into a lancelet, a 
low form of aquatic worm, which became the first animal 
in the real march of life. The primordial cell developed 
into a worm, the worm changed into a fish, the fish was 
metamorphosed into a reptile, the reptile was evolved into 
a bird, the bird in the course of time became a quadruped, 
the quadruped by transmutation became an ape, and 
finally the ape developed into a man. 

"And the worm striving to be man, 
Mounts through all the spires of form." 

In this upward movement there was a steady, unin- 
terrupted progress from the lower to the higher forms 
of life. The mode of the origin of the new species was 
by uniform rate of change and gradation so insensible 
that there was scarcely such a thing as a distinct species. 



Evolution 51 

The species originated by gradual, infinitesimal changes 
through successive generations. There has been an in- 
finite shading of forms into one another, and what ap- 
peared as a distinct animal, at one period of animal de- 
velopment, gradually became something else. There was 
a perpetual change marked by stages of increase of com- 
plexity and diversity of being, so that the phenomena of 
the earth gradually attained a higher and higher type of 
life. 

Evolution presents the view of a cosmic whole, con- 
stituted by varying members descended from its own 
primitive form by derivations so slight and gradual as 
not to suggest difference of origin, but to indicate their 
kinship and community of origin. The changes that have 
taken place in the evolution of life resemble the method 
by which a moving picture is produced. Each distinct 
picture on the rapidly moving photographic film is taken 
at such a slight difference of position from the preced- 
ing picture, that as the film is passed through the machine 
and the picture is thrown upon the canvas, the thing pic- 
tured performs its evolutions as if it were living and 
real. Each animal form in the upward march of the 
earth's life is like a distinct picture on the moving photo- 
graphic film. Each distinct organism is but a slight step 
in the march of evolution in the organic kingdom. Age 
succeeded age, as the varied forms of life succeeded each 
other in an ever-ascending scale, until at length man — a 
rational, self-conscious, self-directing being — comes upon 
the stage of action. Evolution began with protoplasm 
and ended with man, and all the way between them the 
development has been a perfect symmetry. It has been 
an infinite series, each member of which has had a share 



52 The Origin of Man 

in producing man. Successive forms have slowly changed 
into one another, so that, were the fossil records com- 
plete, we could trace the earth's life in an unbroken line 
from man back to the primordial cell at the beginning. 

Man is merely the result of progress in the animal 
kingdom. He never had a paradise, but is advancing 
toward one from a cellular starting point, a hundred mil- 
lion years back. As the completed product of evolution 
he is merely the higher development of the ape. He was 
evolved out of primitive matter by means of certain fixed 
laws, without the intervention of creative power. A 
reasonable and consistent view of organisms can assume 
no supernatural act of creation for even the simplest and 
lowest forms of life. Each higher animal species was 
evolved from a lower until man was developed, who con- 
summates an ascent during cycles of inconceivable dura- 
tion. 

But man was developed immediately from an ape- 
like creature through a number of intermediate steps. In 
order to make out a case for the evolution of man, it was 
necessary to assume the existence of a species of an- 
thropoid apes. It is admitted that man could not have 
been developed from any species of existent ape, because 
their bodily structure is such that it is impossible for man 
to have descended from them. Present apes are but dis- 
tant relatives of the apes from which man is supposed 
to have developed. Back in the abysmal depths of the 
primeval forests, in the dim obscurity of the distant past, 
among the ordinary apes there was one, that in the course 
of time became somewhat more advanced in the scale of 
being than his fellows. This was a most sagacious and 



Evolution 53 

enterprising ape. He had ambition to rise in the world 
and make something out of himself more than a common, 
ordinary ape. This ape made constant improvement un- 
til there came a time, when he had so far advanced in 
the scale of being that he had placed a gulf between him- 
self and his less enterprising brother apes. In the course 
of his history there came a drouth which caused a wide- 
extended famine, during which food became very scarce, 
and this ape was preserved because of his superior advan- 
tages, while all the other apes perished in the struggle for 
existence. He was able to take advantage of these un- 
favorable circumstances, and survived, while they, not 
being fitted for such adverse conditions, all perished. In 
this way he became completely isolated from his kind. 
The progress was started by this individual ape shoot- 
ing ahead of his species, and the advance was maintained 
by his being shut off from his species in this way. If it 
had not been for the destruction of the unfit by means of 
the famine, all the progress he had made would ulti- 
mately have been lost through inter-breeding. Years 
upon years passed during which he propagated his species, 
until this species of ape reached a high degree of devel- 
opment.* 

This suppositious ape, as we learn from the writings 
of the most distinguished evolutionists, was rather more 
human-like in appearance than apelike. He was covered 
with blackish woolly hair, and both sexes had beards. He 
had a long narrow head with pointed ears, and great 
canine teeth protruded from his mouth, which he used 



*Evolution or Creation. — Townscnd. 



54 The Origin of Man 

with good effect in defending himself from his enemies. 
He had a long tail, by means of which he hung to the 
limbs of the trees in which he made his home the most of 
his time, for he was arboreal in his habits. When upon 
the ground, he stood upon his hind feet, and walked about 
in the erect posture by using a stick in both hands as a 
cane. He was social in his habits, and communicated 
freely with his fellows by means of gesture, grimace, and 
voice. He was accustomed to use his voice readily and 
somewhat loudly in expressing his emotions, uttering 
danger signals, and singing. His singing was what 
would to-day be called operatic by those not able to ap- 
preciate classic music. It was the producing of true 
musical cadences, and was expressed especially during 
courtship. He may have reached a high degree of voice 
culture by the use of these vocal exercises, but as he was 
without articulate speech, his singing must have resem- 
bled somewhat the howling of a dog. This ape is called 
Homo Allalus, on account of his inability to use articu- 
late speech. This is not a caricature, but a composite pic- 
ture, made up from the writings of leading evolutionists. 
Untold ages passed during which this race of men- 
like apes, through natural selection and the survival of 
the fittest, became greatly improved. The process of evo- 
lution, at length, brought about the same conditions that 
had formerly taken place among the lower apes, which 
produced this manlike ape. A certain Homo Allalus 
that had succeeded in getting a start of all the rest of his 
kind, became tired of jumping from tree to tree, and as- 
pired to be something still higher. He uncurled his tail 
from the tree to which he had been clinging, and to which 



Evolution 55 

his ancestors had been content to cling, and descended to 
the ground to take up his abode. He could no longer be 
content with the monotony of arboreal life, and he re- 
solved henceforth to dwell upon the ground, and become 
a man. In some great famine his species being unfit to 
survive, all perished, while he, by means of his superior 
attainments, was able to sustain life. At least, in some 
manner he is preserved, while they are swept from the 
face of the earth. Their destruction was so complete that 
not a single vestige of them was left, and, if it were not 
for the presence of man on the earth, we would not know 
that they ever had had an existence. But man is here, 
therefore they must have existed, for there is no other 
satisfactory way to account for the presence of man. In 
this upward march he lost his caudal appendix, and be- 
came more manlike in appearance. He gradually ad- 
vanced from a manlike ape, until he was evolved into an 
apelike man. At length, in the process of his develop- 
ment, he became a man in the physical sense of the word, 
but, of course, he was a very low type of even physical 
man. He is known to the world in this stage of his de- 
velopment by the distinguishing appellation of Homo 
Sapcns. 

The ages come and go, and Homo Sapcns makes con- 
stant improvement. The powers that were formerly em- 
ployed in developing the body were now turned upon the 
brain ; and as a result the intellect gradually rose to com- 
manding power. Mental evolution now succeeded or- 
ganic evolution. The physical life had reached its climax 
in the development of man's body, and the evolution of 
the future must be the development of the intellectual 



56 The Origin of Man 

powers of man. Nature having evolved man, her master- 
piece, there was nothing left for her to do but to perfect 
him. The mental faculties of man have every one grown 
out of the operations of the same physical agencies that 
formed his body. The human mind grew out of matter, 
which was first without mind; but mind was evolved in 
the course of countless ages. All the changes in the mind 
are the result of the movements of atoms affected by cen- 
tral forces. The mind was evolved through the upward 
process by which matter became nervous organization. It 
was developed by the action of organized matter begin- 
ning at the lowest form of animal life; and passing 
through successive gradations of animal structure, until 
habits were formed which became instincts, and instinct 
was gradually developed into mind. The earliest forms 
of life were impelled to act in a certain way by superim- 
posed laws of self-preservation. And through successive 
generations these laws have operated to produce number- 
less gradations of structures in the development of which 
fixed habits have become complex instincts. And fur- 
ther gradations have developed these complex instincts 
into mental powers. In this way instinct rose from its 
lowest action through successive improvements until it 
became intellect. 

Man in his totality has been evolved by the interac- 
tion of organisms and environment. The process of evo- 
lution resulted in the formation of higher animals and 
in the development of the social instincts into more com- 
plex, refined, and consciously calculating instincts of the 
same nature, which became final products and distinct or- 
ganisms. All manifestations of intelligence are included 



Evolution 57 

in the evolutionary process. Man is the last number of a 
series extending over many millions of years. And the 
development of his moral powers, the highest and noblest 
of human attributes, is but the last term in the series of 
cosmic developments. Man is finally evolved into a com- 
plete man, physically, mentally, and morally through the 
mechanical action of matter and the social instincts com- 
mon to animals. 

But man was yet only a primitive savage. There fol- 
lows another period of development of great magnitude, 
during which he becomes a civilized man as we now find 
him. But for many thousands of years he was a savage 
of the lowest type. He fought with his enemies, and 
preyed on his fellows, the stronger on the weaker. Life 
was a constant free fight, and the war of each against all. 
The earth is one great battlefield heaped with the slain of 
countless millions of the race. It is a slaughter-pen re- 
sounding with the ceaseless cries of its helpless victims.* 

Humanity is immortal, as it were, but the individual 
is nothing but an atom that forms apart of the race for a 
little while, then perishes forever. [The individual is sac- 
rificed that mankind may be perfected. Man is in no 
sense a separate creation and distinct from other animals. 
He is not endowed with an individual soul animated by 
the breath of God. He is only the highest product of the 
cosmic process which has evolved animal life from inor- 
ganic matter. And he sprang immediately from the 
group of apes directly beneath him in the scale of being! 
He is the outcome of untold aees of ceaseless conflict in 



*The Ascent of Man. — Drummond. 



58 The Origin of Man 

nature, and has survived because he was strong enough 
to trample under foot and drive to the wall his weaker 
kinsmen. 

"This is the lesson Nature has to teach, 
Woe to the conquered, victory to the strong ! 
And so, through all the ages, step by step, 
The stronger and craftiest replaced 
The weaker, and increased and multiplied. 
And in the end the outcome of the strife was man, 
Who had dominion over all things, and the stronger man 
Trampled his weaker brother under foot." 



II. 



One thing, at least, is manifest to the most casual ob- 
server in regard to the hypothesis of evolution; that is, 
the surface current is all running in one direction. This 
new philosophy is profoundly affecting all branches of 
knowledge. There is scarcely a book written to-day, no 
matter on what subject it treats, that does not either fol- 
low the evolutionary theory as a basis of treatment, or 
acknowledge the truth of its teachings by frequent refer- 
ences to its principles. It has pervaded every field of 
learning, and forced its method of treatment upon them 
all. The literature of almost every branch of knowledge is 
being rewritten in order to bring it into harmony with the 
new philosophy. And as the result of this we have "the 
new science," "the new psychology," "the new sociology," 
"the new ethics," "the new theology," and even "the new 
fiction." But this is just as it should be, if the theory is 
true. All the branches of knowledge must be recast in 
the evolutionary mold, and made to conform to the new 
philosophy. The theory has been accepted as a definite 



Evolution 59 

part of our knowledge, hence all of our literature is being 
brought into harmony with it. 

But before we accept evolution as a finality, we should 
know what it means to the fullest extent. Man can not 
be expected to give a cordial assent to that which destroys 
his personality, and strikes at all the hopes that make 
life worth the living. But the mere fact that it bears un- 
favorably upon the highest hopes indulged in by man can 
not alter the fact of its truth. If the doctrine of evolu- 
tion is true, we can not refuse to accept it, with all its far- 
reaching results, however destructive it may be. But we 
should know what its bearings are on our highest inter- 
ests, so that when we accept it we may do so intelligently, 
and with full appreciation of its consequences. It is no 
proper refutation of a theory to show its evil results. It 
must be accepted, if true, regardless of its consequences. 
The hopes and beliefs that do not harmonize with its 
teachings must be abandoned, no matter if we are robbed 
of all we hold dear in life. We must accept the conse- 
quences, if we accept the theory of evolution, however dis- 
astrous to our cherished beliefs. Our most cherished be- 
liefs and fondest hopes can not change the constitution of 
the universe. The aspirations and longings of humanity 
can not become important evidence either for or against 
any view of what that constitution may be. If the theory 
is a proven result of science, though we may not accept 
its teachings with any degree of pleasure, yet they must 
nevertheless be accepted, if fully demonstrated. \i they 
are only the result of philosophical deductions, we may 
reject them with the hope that in the future some new- 
discovery will confirm and justify our belief in special 
creation, which has given rise to these hopes and aspira- 



60 The Origin of Man 

tions within us. But if they are demonstrated by science, 
there is no possibility of our evading them ; they must be 
accepted with all their far-reaching consequences, how- 
ever detrimental to the hopes of humanity. Human na- 
ture is not prepared to face despair until it shall be proved 
beyond question that despair must be faced. But, if the 
hypothesis of evolution is demonstrated, we must face the 
consequences as gracefully as possible.* 

If evolution is true, there are some results of the doc- 
trine that are inevitable. When the theory is carried to 
its logical conclusion, as it must be, it becomes destructive 
to such an extent as to make its consequences seem to us 
a calamity. Evolution is atheistic in its teachings, though 
all who accept it are not atheists. The thoroughgoing 
evolutionist eliminates the idea of a Creator, and reduces 
everything to the action of atoms and forces which con- 
stitute the substance of all things. The universe is a 
great machine whose multiplied changes result from the 
power supplied at the beginning. There is no final cause, 
for the forces of nature are practically and inherently 
omnipotent. There is, in fact, nothing but matter and 
force which constitute the substance of all things. Divine 
sovereignty and special providence are annulled. Evolu- 
tion is unmitigated and immitigable fatalism. There can 
be no personal God. A personal God is unthinkable. The 
hypothesis is essentially materialistic, and denies all de- 
sign. Matter and force are eternal. Everything has an 
immediate cause, and there is no cause of causes. Intel- 
ligence is the outgrowth of nature and not nature the re- 
sult of intelligence. The female bird creates the plumage 



*The Limits of Evolution. — Howison. 



Evolution 6 1 

of her mate. The bee creates the flowers. Light creates 
the eye. The anthropoid ape creates man. There is no 
God but necessity. Give the evolutionist a bit of matter 
and a little force to begin with, and he can produce the 
universe, if you will only give him time enough. He 
makes of these atoms and forces of nature a supreme God, 
attributing to them the same powers that are commonly 
attributed to the Almighty. What was formerly re- 
garded as an evidence of design and purpose in nature is 
simply the outcome and result of the unconscious and 
eternal forces of matter. All the phenomena of nature 
can be included in a purely mechanical formula. Natural 
causes produced living beings in the beginning, and have 
since kept up the progressive movement, and have given it 
direction without the necessity of a supervisional will, or 
creative power back of it. Evolutionists present uncon- 
scious atoms with various powers of mind, and then exalt 
them by one supreme grant of unlimited possibilities into 
a power capable of producing intelligent beings ; capable 
not only of producing man with all his intellectual en- 
dowments, but capable of replacing an intelligent Creator ; 
capable not only of fashioning the earth with all its varied 
forms of life, but capable of producing the universe itself ; 
capable not only of producing the universe, but capable of 
fixing the worlds in the infinitude of space and causing 
them to revolve true to their orbits throughout the end- 
less cycles of eternity. 

Evolution is fatalism pure and simple. In all things 
and everywhere it prevails. All that takes place is the 
inevitable and blind necessity of all that has previously 
happened. The historv of the world is restricted to the 
successive unfoldings of a series of states, all o\ which 



62 The Origin of Man 

were contained in the primitive states of the world. Each 
moment in the history of the world is accounted for by 
the conditions of the previous moment. Yesterday, to- 
day, and forever ; event follows event with inevitable cer- 
tainty. The man who could fully grasp all the facts of 
to-day, could foretell the events of to-morrow. The He- 
brew prophets were not divinely inspired, but possessed 
an intelligence that enabled them to grasp the incidents 
of their little world, hence they were able to successfully 
predict future events.* Every event has its cause; that is, 
every event must be determined by some preceding event, 
and must itself determine some succeeding event. Causa- 
tion, therefore, is the unconditional and the inevitable se- 
quence of one event upon another. If men were free to 
act for themselves, independent of the influences that sur- 
round them, no prediction could be made as to the cer- 
tainty of future events ; but as they are not able to make 
any independent choice, the events of to-morrow can be 
calculated accurately from the conditions of to-day. And 
in this way, by the application of the principles of mathe- 
matics to the present happenings, an event can be foretold 
a hundred years before it transpires. 

Evolution is the black creed of necessity. The dark 
shadows of fatalism pervade the world, and cast their 
blighting gloom over the human race. All things in this 
world are fatally predetermined and hang together in the 
adamantine fixity of a system of nature composed of an 
endless chain of links. The parts of the universe laid 
down absolutely appoint and decree what the other parts 
shall be. The future, therefore, has no ambiguous possi- 



*L,ife and Literature of the Ancient Hebrews. — Abbott. 



Evolution 63 

bilities; for any other future complement than that one 
fixed from eternity is impossible. The freedom of the 
will which has had such widespread acceptance can not 
be true. Man is no more free in his moral choices than 
he is in the physical realm. Determinism is the true doc- 
trine, and, though it has been obscured somewhat in re- 
cent religious teaching, it must in time reassert itself. 
Calvanistic creeds do not need revising ; for the very doc- 
trines that have met with the strongest opposition are 
the very truth of God, as it is writ large in nature. Free- 
dom, it is true, has triumphed for a time over determin- 
ism. But determinism is again in the saddle — has a 
worthy champion in the new philosophy — and freedom 
will soon be dehorsed.* 

Man is not a conscious person who can feel and act for 
himself from free choice. All his actions are necessitated, 
each act being simply the result of mechanical conditions, 
and is absolutely inevitable. AH of our so-called active 
decisions are irrevocably bound together by causal chains 
that extend back in unbroken retrogression through a 
limitless past. Man is a mere automaton. He acts only 
as he is acted upon by some force over which he has no 
control. He is only a part of nature, and as such is the 
product of its forces, and not that of rational causation. 
He is an effect, his body, his intellect, his consciousness, 
are only the result of the circumstances that have neces- 
sitated his being. His thoughts and actions are regulated 
by laws as absolute as those that govern the ebb and flow 
of the tides. Man is not living, rather, he is being lived. 
Evolution destroys personal identity and merges mankind 



'The Foundations of Belief.— Balfour 



64 The Origin of Man 

into a whole. Mankind is marching forward like the 
French army at the battle of Waterloo. The French, in 
obedience to the command of their great general, charged 
across the valley and up the hillside until they came to 
the sunken road. The front ranks paused on its brink, but 
those behind them crowded them into the road, and, in 
their turn, were crowded in by those behind them until 
the road was filled with the bodies of men and horses, and 
the columns behind them crossed on the bodies of their 
comrades that filled the road. Life is a sunken road into 
which the front ranks of humanity are being crowded in 
order that those which follow may cross on their pros- 
trate bodies. Irrational, purposeless, planless, humanity 
goes forward to meet its final doom. 

Everything that man does has been previously re- 
ceived from his progenitors. His conceptions have been 
built up for him in this unresistible fashion. Cognitions 
in man are irresistible, a part of the nature of things, and 
incapable of change. They are the result of transmitted 
inheritances which were handed down to him through 
generation after generation of successive ancestors hand- 
ing down their accumulated associations in an ever-in- 
creasing mass and cohesion. The eternity behind him 
throbs through him, and compels him to act as he does. 
His ancestors, long since dead and returned to dust, speak 
down the centuries through him. What man thinks, wills, 
and does, he must think, will, and do. Man's hopes and 
fears, his affections and aspirations are the result of nerv- 
ous action. A man's character depends entirely on the 
quantity and quality of the nervous energy that has been 
transmitted to him from his ancestors. He can no more 
change his conduct than he can change the color of his 



Evolution 65 

skin. The blackest crime is as innocent and virtuous as 
the noblest deed. The blow with which the assassin 
strikes his victim to the earth, and the loving caress the 
mother bestows upon her child are equally automatic and 
inevitable. Heroism is a delusion and virtue is a dream. 
It destroys personal responsibility, and makes the enforce- 
ment of the penalty of any law a crime. Crime, sin, guilt, 
repentance, remorse, sorrow, virtue, merit, are nothing 
more than so many empty names. Man may take a life or 
save one, it matters not, the act is forced upon him by 
existing circumstances, and is wholly lacking in merit. 
Whatever is, is right. The distinction of right and 
wrong, good and evil, are the products of the social in- 
stincts, which have been fostered by society until they 
have gained their present distinction. But in reality there 
is no moral order, no objective right. There is no un- 
changing law of morals, no absolute distinction between 
good and evil. 

It is true that the evolutionist deduces certain moral 
maxims from his observation of life. He perceives that 
certain courses of conduct produce pleasure, these he calls 
right ; but certain other courses of conduct cause suffering, 
these he calls wrong. He measures conduct from its visi- 
ble results, and deduces principles of moral actions from 
his observations of such results. In this way he accounts 
for the ethical beliefs that are commonly received. 

Evolution completely annuls free moral agency and 
personal freedom. But the question may be asked. \\ 
necessity reigns supreme, how did the delusion of free- 
dom arise? The evolutionists answer that this notion 
Originated ill a natural manner as the inference from cer- 
tain actions of the mind. Volition means merely the 
5 



66 The Origin of Man 

power to obey the strongest motive. There is only the 
process of willing, as one of the processes of the mind it- 
self. And volition is simply the transformation of feel- 
ing into action, which is attended by conscious compari- 
son of impressions involving resultant desire and im- 
pressions. Man's actions are the result of the acquired 
instincts of the organisms that have had to struggle for 
life. He has within him tendencies and passions that de- 
scended to him from innumerable ancestors who made 
him the sum of all their experiences. "Man is haunted 
by dead ancestors who look through his eyes, speak in 
his words, act in his deeds. He is composed of echoes of 
spent passions, shreds and patches of wornout sins, rags 
and tatters of the past." 

Evolution makes man a mere animal. He is some- 
what more highly developed in his structure than other 
animals, but there is no real difference between him and 
the lower animals. They have understanding, reason, 
consciousness, will, feeling, in a less highly developed 
form. The difference is one of degree not of kind. Man 
is a more finely constructed machine than other animals. 
But he is simply a higher animal, and differs from other 
animals only in the degree of the development to which 
he has attained. But he does not differ in any essential 
particular from the lower animals. He is actually what 
they are potentially. He is merely the product of organ- 
ized matter as they are. He came from matter, and in 
a little while to matter he will return. 

The doctrine of evolution is incompatible with the 
belief in the immortality of the soul. The instant that 
death takes place the brain ceases its operations; and as 
soon as the brain ceases to act, the soul ceases to be, for 



Evolution 67 

it is wholly dependent on the functions of the brain. The 
soul is nothing but a highly developed form of instinct. 
The ego is the entire organism including the nervous sys- 
tem, and is not a person — an independent existence. 
Therefore, according to evolution, man's soul is not a 
spiritual entity capable of surviving the body. Conscious- 
ness consists of tracts of feelings in the nervous system. 
Man can not have a spiritual principle within him — an 
immortal soul — for there is nothing but matter out of 
which to evolve the soul. We know that it is an un- 
changing law that like produces its like, matter produces 
matter, and never anything higher, though it may assume 
various forms. The idea of generating a spiritual entity 
out of matter is inconceivable. If there was not a spir- 
itual nature imparted to man at the beginning of his ex- 
istence by a higher spiritual being, he can not have such 
a nature. Animals can transmit only that which they pos- 
sess themselves ; and, as man was evolved from the lower 
animals, he has nothing more than an animal soul. That 
man can not have a spiritual nature is manifest, for evo- 
lution does away with a personal God, and there is no 
source from which man could derive an immortal soul. 
The intuitions of man as to things unseen are value- 
less and unfounded. The so-called intuitional ideas are 
due to ancestral experiences, whose results have been 
cumulatively registered in brain tissue through unnum- 
bered generations, and have been transmitted from parent 
to child. The theory of evolution pushed to its logical 
conclusion, denies the continuance of individual exist- 
ence after death ; hence, the immortality o\ the soul. Man 
is an animal — the highest and wisest animal — but noth- 
ing more than an animal. Man is matter in transition 



68 The Origin of Man 

from lower matter to higher matter. He is matter a lit- 
tle higher organized, but nothing but matter still. And 
when his body is decomposed, all that distinguishes him 
as a man resolves itself again into matter. 

The evolutionary philosophy is fatal to religious be- 
lief. Those who accept the hypothesis must dismiss re- 
ligion from the field of respectable intelligence. The 
revolutionary character of the doctrine does not seem to 
have been clearly comprehended by the professors of re- 
ligion who accept it. Many sincere religionists have 
openly embraced the theory, seemingly without the least 
suspicion of its hostility to the fundamental doctrines of 
their faith. But evolution is accepted by them at a fear- 
ful cost to their system of religious teaching. "What 
could break the spring of life more completely than to 
feel that our feet are tangled in a net whose meshes were 
woven for us by our ancestors, and for them by tailless 
apes, and for them by gilled amphibians, and for them 
by gliding worms, and for them by ciliated larvse, and for 
them by amoebae, and for them by God does not know 
what. It does not help the case in the least to do as some 
theologians have tried to do, and bring back into the 
theory by the aid of certain misconstrued and very much 
overworked passages of Scripture, the idea of a supreme 
Deity who has constructed the loom and designed the 
pattern of the net and decreed the weaving of every loop. 
The chain of fate is not made less heavy by fastening the 
end of it to the distant throne of an omnipotent and im- 
passive Creator."* 

Evolution teaches that Christianity is as much the 



*The Gospel for an Age of Doubt, p. 216. 



Evolution 69 

natural growth of the law of circumstances as any thing 
else. Man first worshiped his grandfather, and from the 
worship of his grandfather to that of his ghost, after his 
ancestor's death, was but a slight step. As the number of 
his ancestors increased, his worship became polytheistic. 
It became pantheistic as his superstitions increased and 
he worshiped everything. And it finally became mono- 
theistic as he was led to worship the one strongest power 
known to him. Monotheism at length culminated in 
Judaism. Judaism was natural religion evolved through 
polytheism. It was a natural development from ante- 
cedent conditions due to environment and resident forces. 
And Christianity is the natural outgrowth of Judaism.* 
The religionist who accepts evolution as the sole explana- 
tion of the physical world can not discard it when he 
comes to the spiritual realm, but must apply it here like- 
wise. He can not apply its teachings to account for the 
origin of all other things, and lay it aside in the realm 
of religion without explanation. If evolution has de- 
veloped man from the brute creation with all his higher 
faculties, it is only reasonable to suppose that by pre- 
cisely the same physical causes, it has given us the Chris- 
tian religion. 

Evolution robs man of his freedom, his responsibility, 
his personality, his soul, his immortality, his religion, and 
his God, and makes of him an individualized bit of mat- 
ter for a temporary purpose. When this temporary pur- 
pose has been fulfilled, and he has contributed his small 
share to the survival of the fittest, he is reabsorbed by 
the great mass of matter of which the earth is comprised. 



*The Evolution of Christianity. — Abbott. 



THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION 



"Those who hold to the doctrine of Evolution are by no means 
ignorant of the uncertainty of their data ; and they yield to it only a 
provisional assent." — Tyndall. 

"Wherever there are complex masses of phenomena to be in- 
quired into, whether they be phenomena of the affairs of daily life, 
or whether they belong to the more abstruse and difficult problems 
laid before the philosopher, our course of proceeding in unraveling 
that complex chain of phenomena with a view to get at its cause, 
is always the same ; in all cases we must invent a hypothesis ; we 
must place before ourselves some more or less likely supposition 
respecting that cause; and then, having assumed a hypothesis, hav- 
ing supposed a cause for the phenomena in question, we must en- 
deavor, on the one hand, to demonstrate our hyopthesis, or, on the 
other, to upset and reject it altogether, by testing it in three ways. 
We must, in the first place, be prepared to prove that the supposed 
causes of the phenomena exist in nature; that they are what the 
logicians call vera causae — true causes; in the next place, we should 
be prepared to show that the assumed causes of the phenomena are 
competent to produce such phenomena as those which we wish to 
explain by them ; and in the last place, we ought to be able to show 
that no other known causes are competent to produce these phe- 
nomena." — Huxley. 



72 



THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION 

TP HERE are numerous arguments by which it is sought 
to establish the theory of evolution. The proofs 
of the hypothesis cover a wide field, but the reader who 
is not familiar with the line of argument can get a good 
idea of it from a brief statement of the evidence ad- 
duced to prove the truth of the theory. While evolution- 
ists have written many ponderous volumes setting forth 
almost ad infinitum the details of the proofs of the theory, 
yet in reality there are only a few lines of argument that 
are employed to substantiate evolution, and these may be 
stated in a few brief paragraphs. It is not claimed that 
the evidence for evolution is sufficient to establish the 
theory ; but it is held that there is some evidence that may 
be presented in its favor, while there is none whatever 
to be presented in favor of special creation. Spencer says 
of this evidence: "It is not simply legitimate instead of 
illegitimate, because representable in thought, instead of 
unrepresentable, but it has the support of some evidence, 
instead of being absolutely unsupported by evidence. 
Though the facts at present assignable in direct proof that 
by progressive modifications, races of organisms that arc 
apparently distinct may result from antecedent races, 
are not sufficient; yet there are numerous facts of the 
order required."* 



♦Principles of Biology, Vol. I, p. 351; 

73 



74 The Origin of Man 

We shall present in the briefest possible space the 
proofs that are relied upon to establish the hypothesis, and 
shall set forth the objections that are made to them, en- 
deavoring to point out their weakness and to show their 
insufficiency to substantiate the theory. 



I. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 

It is claimed by the advocates of evolution that the 
distribution of plants and animals over the surface of 
the earth is such as we would expect were they produced 
by evolution. Animals, for example, are limited to cer- 
tain areas of the earth's surface. In one country you find 
certain species, while in an adjacent country you discover 
entirely distinct species. If they were produced by spe- 
cial creation, it is thought that there is no good reason 
for this unequal distribution. The species should be 
scattered uniformly over the earth, and not be confined to 
narrow districts as we find them, if they were produced by 
divine intervention. Huxley calls attention to the horse 
as an illustration of this limited distribution of animal 
species. He says : "Horses, like all other animals, have 
certain limits — are confined to a certain area on the sur- 
face of the earth on which we live — and, as that is the 
simpler matter, I may take that first. In the wild state, 
and before the discovery of America, when the natural 
state of things was interfered with by the Spaniards, the 
horse was only to be found in parts of the earth which 
are known to geographers as the Old World; that is to 
say, you might meet with the horse in Europe^ Asia, 
Africa ; but there were none in Australia, and there were 



Proofs of Evolution 75 

none whatsoever in the whole continent of America, from 
Labrador down to Cape Horn. This is an impirical fact, 
and is what is called, stated in the way I have given it 
you, the 'Geographical Distribution' of the horse."* This 
is an unfortunate illustration for the theory of evolution, 
for, instead of its being proof of the transmutation of the 
species, it has no real bearing on the theory. The fact is, 
the horse was once a native of this country. We find his 
fossil remains along with those of other species that once 
flourished on this continent. It is true that the horse is 
well adapted to the conditions that now exist in this coun- 
try, but there has been a time in the remote past, when 
the conditions were unfavorable. And as a result of 
these unfavorable conditions the horse perished. This 
may have been brought about gradually by degeneration, 
or it may have been the result of some sudden cataclysmic 
change of climate. But the horse native to this land, in 
some manner unknown to us, was exterminated. And 
what was true of the horse on this continent may have 
been true of the species to a greater or less extent all 
over the globe. For all we know to the contrary, there 
may have been at one time equal distribution of all the 
species over the surface of the earth, and by degeneration, 
or sudden change in the climate or surface of the earth 
itself, they may have perished in some places and been 
preserved in others, like the horse. There would be 
some force in the argument from distribution if the sur- 
face of the earth and the climate had remained the same 
from the beginning. But we are not dealing with orig- 
inal conditions, hence there is no real force in the fact 



♦Origin of Species, p. 22. 



76 The Origin of Man 

that there is at the present time unequal distribution of 
the species on the face of the earth. 

V The fact that a large group of species, widely dis- 
tributed in a given district, has more varieties than a small 
group of species confined to narrow limits, is taken as 
evidence that new species have been evolved from others 
under favorable conditions. It is held that, if each species 
is a special creation, there is no apparent reason why more 
varieties should occur in a group having many species 
than in one having few. But these facts are not as diffi- 
cult as they may appear at first sight. The large number 
of species distributed over a wide area of country would 
find conditions favorable to their preservation as they 
were originally created. And as they are widely sep- 
arated with distinct environment and somewhat different 
local conditions, there might be a tendency to produce 
slightly different varieties among them. But with the 
few species confined to the narrow limits, the conditions 
would be different from those under which they were 
placed at creation, and the law of degeneration would 
tend to limit the number of the species. The conditions 
being unfavorable, the species would tend to die off, and 
in time many of them might become exterminated. A 
limited range and a scanty supply of food would tend to 
diminish the number of the species, and this is why 
there are fewer varieties in a small group than in a large 
one. And instead of there being no apparent reason for 
numerous varieties in widely distributed species and 
fewer varieties where the species are confined to a small 
territory, the facts are just as we should expect them to 
be, if they were produced by special creation. 

There are other facts, however, for which the evolu- 



Proofs of Evolution 77 

tionary hypothesis can give no satisfactory explanation. 
In Australia, for example, with its dry winds, open plains, 
stormy desert, and its temperate climate there are pro- 
duced animals and birds, which are closely related to 
those inhabiting the hot, damp, luxurious forests of New 
Guinea. And Borneo and New Guinea are as like as two 
distinct countries can well be, yet they are zoologically 
as wide asunder as the poles. The island of Bali has a 
climate almost as dry and a soil almost as arid as the 
island of Timor. These islands are constructed after the 
same pattern, bathed by the same ocean, but between 
them there is the widest possible contrast, when we com- 
pare their animal productions. These facts can be ex- 
plained on the theory of special creation when we take 
into consideration the vast changes that have taken place 
in the earth's surface by earthquake and geological revo- 
lution, but there is no possibility of explaining them ac- 
cording to any theory of transmutation that is held by 
the advocates of evolution. If evolution is true, similar 
environment ought to produce similar results, but mani- 
festly similar conditions have produced dissimilar re- 
sults, which is inconsistent with the theory and contrary 
to reason. 

II. NATURAL SELECTION. 

Natural selection was inferred by Darwin from arti- 
ficial selection under domestication. He observed that 
varieties were developed under domestication by artificial 
selection, and reasoned that in the same way varieties 
may have been preserved and new species produced by 
natural selection under nature. Any new powers and 
organs that might be produced by natural selection would 



78 The Origin of Man 

be preserved and perpetuated in the offspring through 
many successive generations. The individual animals in 
which these favorable individual differences and varia- 
tions of structure were preserved would have the best 
chance of surviving and propagating their kind. The 
process is supposed to have continued through the grad- 
ual evolution of successive higher types of animals from 
the lower to the higher until man is reached. In this 
supposed struggle for existence, on account of numbers 
and possible famine, which takes place between the numer- 
ous individuals, the law of natural selection comes into 
operation by which animals are secured from destruction 
on account of the disparity between them and the amount 
of food or the unfavorable influence of a sudden change 
of climate. The strongest and most active animals would 
have the best chance of surviving, because best fitted to 
secure food or endure privation. And in this way the 
individual best suited to continue the species would sur- 
vive, while the weaker and less active animals would 
perish. 

Natural selection is not a constituent factor of the 
process of evolution itself, but is merely an ingenious at- 
tempt to explain how evolution may have taken place. 
But it is spoken of as if it had an actual existence and 
was a constituent factor in development by the writers of 
evolution. The supposed law is thus stated by its dis- 
tinguished author : "Can it, then, be thought improbable, 
seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly 
occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each 
being in the great and complex battle for life should oc- 
cur in the course of many successive generations? If 
such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many 



Proofs of Evolution 79 

more individuals are born than can possibly survive) 
that individuals having an advantage, however slight, 
over others would have the best chance of surviving, and 
of procreating their kind? On the other hand we may 
feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious 
would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favor- 
able individual differences and variations, and the de- 
struction of those which are injurious, I have called 'Nat- 
ural Selection,' or the survival of the fittest."* 

The title of Mr. Darwin's work, "The Origin of 
Species," leads one to believe that he treats of the origin 
of the species, but it is not claimed that natural selection 
has any productive power whatever. The title of the 
book is misleading, for it does not tell us anything of the 
origin of the species. Natural selection, as it is set forth 
in the book, shows how the species may have persisted, 
and the fittest survived, but it fails to explain how they 
originated. There could be no natural selection until 
there was something from which to select, and this some- 
thing had produced in some way a variety that could be 
preserved. The survival of the fittest does not account 
for the origin of the fittest. How the species came to be 
in the first place, is entirely ignored. The author says : 
"I may here premise that I have nothing more to do with 
the origin of mental powers any more than I have that oi 
life itself."f He attempts to sliow how the species may 
have been transmuted from one into another, and from 
the lower into the higher; but he docs not deal directly 
with the question of origin. He does not even hold that 



*The Origin of Species, Vol, I, p. 98. 

I Ibid., p. 319. 



80 The Origin of Man 

natural selection could induce a variety in a species after 
it had originated. He says : "Some have even imagined 
that natural selection induces variability, whereas it im- 
plies only the preservation of such varieties as arise and 
are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life."* 
Natural selection, in its supposed operations, is limited 
to preserving anything beneficial to the animal that has 
been gained by some other means. If in the struggle for 
existence any new powers are acquired, it retains and 
transmits them to the animal's posterity. Granting the 
origin of life and variability, it undertakes to account 
for new species by descent with modification. 

But does this selective breeding occur in nature? Are 
natural causes competent to play the part of selection in 
producing new species? Darwin took the position that 
a careful study of plants and animals under domestica- 
tion would show how new species were introduced. He 
inferred, from the fact that varieties were produced by 
artificial selection under domestication, that similar ef- 
fects took place under nature. Had he stopped with this 
inference there could have been no great fault found with 
his reasoning, but he assumed that new species were pro- 
duced in this way by natural selection. Nature is said to 
select the best individuals to live and propagate their 
species. Nature is spoken of as if it were an intelligent 
agent, and more power is assumed for nature than is 
granted to man with all his intellectual endowments. 
"Not one man in a thousand," he says, "has accuracy of 
eye and judgment to become an eminent breeder. If 
gifted with these qualities, and he studies his subject for 



i: "The Origin of Species, Vol. I, p. 99. 



Proofs of Evolution 81 

years, and devotes his lifetime to it with indomitable per- 
severance, he will succeed, and make great improvements ; 
if he wants any of these qualities, he will fail."* It will 
be seen from this quotation that the author of natural se- 
lection admits the supreme difficulty of artificial selection, 
but in his theory of natural selection he grants more to 
unintelligent nature than to man with all his advantages. 
If it is so difficult to become a successful breeder under 
domestication, with all the advantages possessed by man, 
it is utterly impossible for new species to have been pro- 
duced by natural selection. And Mr. Darwin makes a 
further admission in which he acknowledges the fact 
that it is more difficult to produce variety under nature 
than under domestication. "This great variability is due 
to our domestic productions having been raised under 
conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat dif- 
ferent from those to which parent species had been ex- 
posed under nature. "f If a directing mind is necessary 
under the more favorable conditions of domestication to 
produce varieties, how much greater need there would 
be for a directing mind to produce any such modifications 
under the more uniform and less favorable conditions of 
nature ? 

What Darwin says of the breeding of cats, in con- 
trast with the breeding of pigeons by artificial selection, 
approximates somewhat to the conditions under nature. 
There would be no restraint under nature and there is 
some restraint on these animals under domestication. 
"Pigeons, I may add, can. be propagated in great nuni- 



*The Origin of Species, Vol. I, p. 36. 
tlbid., p. 7. 

6 



82 The Origin of Man 

bers and at a very quick rate, and inferior birds may be 
freely rejected as when killed for food. On the other 
hand, cats from their nocturnal rambling habits can not 
be easily matched, and, although so much valued by 
women and children, we rarely see a distinct breed long 
kept up : such breeds as we do sometimes see are almost 
always imported from some other country."* If under 
domestication the animals were allowed to breed freely 
as cats do, the work of the breeder would utterly fail; 
for it is only by constant care of men of accuracy of eye 
and judgment that animals that are easily bred are kept 
up to the required standard. And under nature there 
would be nothing to hinder interbreeding, hence the de- 
velopment of new species would be an impossibility by 
natural selection. And we are forced to regard natural 
selection as inadequate to account for the various species. 
Different varieties have been developed from some 
original stock by artificial selection, but no new and dis- 
tinct kind of animal has ever been produced. There are 
many different kinds of pigeons that have been developed 
from the common rock pigeons. There are carriers, fan- 
tails, pouters, tumblers, but they are all pigeons. There 
are various kinds of dogs, curs, pugs, poodles, terriers, 
pointers, setters, spaniels, shepherds, but they are nothing 
but dogs. There are many different varieties of horses, 
the race, road, coach, draft, but they are only horses 
after all. The pigeons are pigeons, the dogs are dogs, and 
the horses are horses. There is no evidence in these 
highly developed varietal forms for the theory of evolu- 
tion. No species has ever gradually lost its distinctive 



*The Origin of Species, Vol. I, p. 47. 



Proofs of Evolution 83 

characteristics so as to change into some entirely differ- 
ent form of animal. As far as we can trace the species 
back in geological history birds have been birds, reptiles 
have been reptiles, apes have been apes, and men have 
been men. In all that has been accomplished through ar- 
tificial selection by breeding from the improved animals, 
no animal has yet been produced that varied from its pro- 
genitors in anything but advantageous peculiarities. If 
it is impossible to accomplish the change of one animal 
into another and distinct kind of animal by artificial se- 
lection under domestication, it is impossible that any such 
change could be accomplished by natural selection under 
nature, where no such selection in all probability would 
be made. 

It is taught that natural selection only preserves 
slight advantageous improvements in an animal, and that 
it can not preserve a marked modification. If natural 
selection can not preserve a marked modification, how is 
it possible for it to preserve a small variation ? It would 
naturally appear that, if either could be preserved, the ad- 
vantage would be with the more marked variation ; and, 
if this could not be preserved, the less marked could not. 
If it is true that all abnormal divergence in a species 
tends to revert to the normal form, instead of perpetuat- 
ing itself, then it follows that the assumptions of evolu- 
tionists make two laws of nature work against each other. 
The one law takes a marked modification, and reduces it 
to the normal; while the other takes a slight divergence, 
and causes it to increase until there is developed in this 
way a new species. The forces of nature, we know, are 
constantly arrayed against the life forces. This theory 
makes much of the destruction of the vast majority of 



84 The Origin of Man 

life forms by means of the destructive forces of nature. 
How could it be possible, when nature is "red in tooth 
and claw" against life, that it has dealt so kindly with 
these slight advantageous variations? It is not reason- 
able to suppose that natural selection, in the face of these 
opposing forces, is competent to give rise to new species. 

We find that every species transmits to its offspring 
the natural characteristics of its own species, and never 
those belonging to another. Animals are only variable 
within certain limits. They can be changed within these 
limits by artificial selection, but they can not be changed 
into something else. When evolutionists, by selective 
breeding, can produce from the same stock two varieties 
so widely different that a cross between them will produce 
sterile hybrids, they may claim that there is some basis 
of truth in their hypothesis. 

There has been time to observe the workings of na- 
ture in the production of new varieties among the species 
since the theory of natural selection was first advanced, 
and it has been found that the theory utterly breaks down. 
Its fundamental principles are contradicted before our 
very eyes. The botanist has observed that new plants 
appear suddenly in the full perfection of their powers. 
They spring into existence like Jonah's gourd fully 
equipped, and are positive refutations of the theory of 
natural selection. And the same fact has been observed 
with domestic fowls. For example, the "black-shoul- 
dered," or "japanned" peacocks appeared suddenly in 
England in the flocks among the common kind. They 
have been looked upon as a new species ; they are, to say 
the least, a very highly developed variety, if they are not a 
distinct species. This new species appeared suddenly 



Proofs of Evolution 85 

with their distinctive characteristic, which is in direct 
violation of the essential principles of natural selection. 
There is no explanation that evolutionists can offer that 
will explain the origin of these new species of plants and 
birds. For if these plants and birds could make their 
appearance suddenly on the stage of action, is there any 
satisfactory reason why all the plant and animal species 
may not have originated in the same manner? These 
two observed facts as to how these species have originated 
are of greater value than all the speculation that evolu- 
tionists have indulged in on the subject. Natural selec- 
tion was hailed at first as the solution to the origin of all 
things, but evolutionists themselves have had to aban- 
don it as the exclusive explanation of the origin of nat- 
ural phenomena. They still persist in regarding it as one 
of the factors in evolution, but it is no longer held to be 
all sufficient as it once was. 

III. SEXUAL SELECTION. 

Sexual selection embodies exactly the same idea as 
natural selection, but the thought is expressed in a dif- 
ferent way. It is employed to supplement and re-enforce 
natural selection. And like natural selection it is a crea- 
ture of the imagination. Its author having evolved the 
former selection, conceived this idea of sexual selection 
as a kind of after-thought. It assumes that a struggle 
has taken place between the males in the animal kingdom 
for the possession of the females. While there does not 
appear to have been any such disparity in the numbers 
between the sexes that would lead to any such struggle, 
yet it is assumed that there must have been a struggle of 



86 The Origin of Man 

this kind. It is taken for granted that the stronger and 
more active males would naturally overcome the weaker 
and less active males in this struggle; and as a conse- 
quence would produce offspring, while the weaker males 
would produce few or no offspring. The female "taste" 
is supposed also to have played an important part in this 
selection. The female selected the most attractive and 
highly colored male which led, especially among birds, 
to the production of males with highly developed colors 
and markings. The best appointed males in their strife 
for the females would develop new organs and powers 
by means of natural selection. Their descendants would 
share in these advantageous modifications. And in this 
way the modifications would multiply in a geometrical 
ratio of increase through millions of years, until finally 
there would be produced an animal that totally differed 
from its remote ancestor. 

This struggle for the opposite sex, however, could not 
have begun until the sexes were separated from each 
other. The sexes are conceived by evolutionists as at 
first being unisexual, and after further development as 
becoming bisexual. There could be no struggle for the 
opposite sex as long as the two were combined in the 
same animal. At a definite time in the evolution of the 
species a radical change must have taken place, when, by 
means of an "inevitable cleavage," the sexes that had 
been united in the same animal became separated. The 
different sexes, as well as the animals themselves, must 
have originated in some other way before there could have 
been any struggle between the males for the females. 
There was no real reason, then, for any such a struggle to 
begin, for there never has been such a disparity of num- 



Proofs of Evolution 87 

bers between the males and females as to necessitate it. 
It is true that some time in the course of the world's his- 
tory, there might have been a severe famine, or some such 
event, that would fulfill the conditions required for nat- 
ural selection. But there is no reason why the strong 
and fleet female should not have had an equal chance to 
survive with the male, and hence their numbers always 
remain practically the same. 

The supposition that the highly colored plumage of 
the male birds have been produced by the female taste is 
not well founded; for, in all creatures below and above 
birds in the scale of being, color is largely independent 
of sex. And this well-known fact, that color as a rule is 
independent of sex, can only be accounted for by a beg- 
ging of the question. It is claimed that colors were first 
selected by the female taste, and were afterward trans- 
mitted to both sexes. The rule is made to prove the ex- 
ception, instead of the exception proving the rule, as is 
usually the case in other things. The female bird through 
her admiration for bright colors selected the plumage 
of her mate, and, hence, it follows that all other females 
have selected the colors in the same way ; but in all other 
cases both sexes have finally come to inherit them without 
distinction of sex. 

It does not always occur that the animal best adapted 
to propagate his species secures the female. It is not in- 
frequent under nature that animals best fitted to produce 
their kind destroy themselves in fighting each other, while 
the weaker and less fit animals are left to propagate the 
species. Then, again, the less fit animal in color and form 
is not infrequently stronger than the more lit animal. 
and he propagates his kind instead of those best adapted 



88 The Origin of Man 

for this purpose. Our observation' is that under domes- 
tication, where there is freedom of choice on the part of 
both sexes, which is rare, all have an equal chance of pro- 
creation regardless of color or form. And under nature 
there certainly is no reason why the same thing should 
not be true. We know that the unfit in society contrib- 
ute more largely to the increase of the population than 
the fittest. The wealthy and educated classes are not 
even reproducing themselves, to say nothing of keeping up 
the progress of the race. Statesmen and educators have 
recognized the danger in this of race suicide, and have 
raised the cry of alarm. This same fact is observed un- 
der domestication with animals, as they become more 
highly developed they produce fewer offspring, and the 
tendency is toward sterility. And there is no reason to 
suppose that the same rule would not hold true in nature. 
It is merely a supposition that the strongest and best- 
equipped animals would beget all the offspring, while the 
weaker and less fit would beget none. The facts relating 
to the black-shouldered peacocks, of which mention has 
already been made, disprove this fine-spun theory of sex- 
ual selection. The males of this new species were weaker 
than those of the common kind among which they ap- 
peared, and they were always beaten in battle by the com- 
mon kind. But in spite of these facts the species in- 
creased to the extinction of the previously existing breed 
wherever they appeared. 

According to the theory of selection the process of 
development produces in the various animals minute and 
successive transitions, the organisms in this way become 
changed, and the entire animal becomes vastly superior 
to the ancient form. But these first forms under the 



Proofs of Evolution 89 

theory of selection would be few in number. "Owing to 
the high geometrical rate of increase of all organic beings, 
each area is fully stocked with inhabitants; and it fol- 
lows from this, that as the favored forms increase in 
number, so, generally, will the less favored decrease and 
become rare. Rarity, as geology tells us, is the precursor 
of extinction. We can see that any form represented by 
few individuals will run a good chance of extinction."* 
And as these first forms that are supposed to have been 
produced by selection were rare they must have had little 
chance for existence in the struggle for life against the 
vast numbers of the common kind. The only way to 
avoid this difficulty is to assume that the supposed ac- 
quisition of new powers gave these rare forms a better 
chance of surviving, and at the same time making it easy 
for them to exist by destroying the less favored by the 
wholesale. Granting evolutionists these two things, the 
preservation of the favored forms and the destruction of 
the unfit, they evolve the species by selection. 

But it is a fact that can not be gainsaid that we can 
go just so far in introducing changes in animals, when 
sterility and death ensue. We can not cross the barriers 
between the species because of this tendency of rarity to 
produce extinction. Is there any reason why this ten- 
dency would not hold good in selection under nature 
The further an animal is removed from its original type, 
variation proceeds less and less rapidly until a limit is 
finally reached where no more variation is possible. Va- 
riation is a diminishing quantity, hence there are limits to 
it. When the stability of an organism is artificially al- 



*The Origin of Species, Vol. I, p. [33, 



90 The Origin of Man 

tered, in the attempt to establish new breeds, infertility 
and death ensue, and this takes place under a similar se- 
lection to that which is supposed to have taken place under 
nature. And this fact is fatal to selection, either natural 
or sexual, to account for the transmutation of the species 
from the lower to the higher. Selection, therefore, is not 
competent to account for the phenomena of organized 
nature. 

IV. SIMILARITY OF STRUCTURE. 

The resemblance between various species, it is claimed, 
proves a common origin. It is thought that it can not 
be a mere coincidence that there exists just twenty seg- 
ments in such a large number of species. It is assumed 
that if these species had originated by special creation 
there would have been a greater variety of structure. It 
is imagined that if God had created the species he would 
have introduced novelties in structure with great fre- 
quency. But why it should be inconsistent with special 
creation to have a uniform plan of creation, it is difficult 
to imagine. These twenty segments are found in animal 
varieties such as the moth, the beetle, and the lobster, 
which differ vastly in other respects. And it is inferred 
from this fact of their similarity, in this particular, that 
they had a common origin in some lower type of life with 
just twenty segments. But instead of finding in this fact 
a proof that these animal types were evolved from some 
lower forms of life with the same number of segments, 
we find in it an evidence of design. Why have these 
forms developed in other respects until they differ so 
widely, and not in this particular also, if they descended 



Proofs of Evolution 91 

from a common ancestor? The theory of special crea- 
tion is the only hypothesis that gives a satisfactory answer 
to the question. The twenty segments exist in a large 
number of species that differ in size, outline, substance, 
and modes of existence. Here is a general plan on which 
all of these distinct forms are constructed. And this uni- 
formity of plan of construction affords the highest proba- 
bility of design. We observe that in all kinds of architec- 
ture there is one common plan that is used, no matter 
how widely the buildings differ in other respects. Some 
form of the arch is invariably employed in all kinds of 
architectural structures. Why has the use of the arch 
been so universally adopted ? The answer is not difficult 
to find. It is because the arch is the best method of con- 
struction that human ingenuity could devise, in order to 
span space and at the same time support weight. It has 
been uniformly adopted, not merely because it adds to 
the beauty of the structure, but because it is the best 
method of construction. And the reason that there is this 
uniformity of structure in the frame of such a large num- 
ber of animals is because it is the best possible plan of 
construction in order to enable them to perform their 
functions in life. The Creator did not choose to intro- 
duce variety in the plan of structure, but in the individual 
animals themselves. There are no two beings that are 
exactly alike in every particular, and, hence, there was 
no reason for a change of structure in order to introduce 
variety. Resemblance in structure, rather, points a com- 
mon plan — a unity of design — instead of an evolution 
from a common ancestry. And evolutionists are forced 
to admit the independent origin of many species that are 
strikingly similar in Structure. The same ideal plan 



92 The Origin of Man 

answers for many different species, because it is the best 
plan that could be devised. Supernatural causation is 
by no means inconsistent with uniformity of structure, 
but admits of a similarity in plan of construction. The 
introduction of novelties in the frames of animals would 
suggest that there were different originating powers, 
while uniformity of structure indicates one source of 
origin — one creative mind. 

It is argued that as the human skeleton is constructed 
on the same principles as that of the apes, that they both 
must have descended from a common stock. But all 
these features of relationship do not justify the conclu- 
sion that apes and men had a common ancestry. Far 
greater than the undeniable points of similarity between 
apes and men are the far-reaching differences as indi- 
cated by the vertical position, the formation of the foot 
and hand, the shape of the skull, the size of the brain, 
and the moral nature. It was not necessary in forming 
man to devise a plan of construction differing in every 
particular from that employed in making the apes. It is 
claimed that the anthropoid apes correspond bone for 
bone, and muscle for muscle with man, and consequently 
they must have had a common origin. But while there 
may be a close resemblance in these particulars, yet there 
are other features in which they widely differ. It is the 
points of distinction between man and the ape that should 
be emphasized, and not their similarity. Evolutionists 
magnify the similarity, and fail to note the marked dif- 
ferences between them. Man is free^ distinguishes be- 
tween the right and the wrong, recognizes duty, has the 
power of speech, reasons, believes, worships, builds, and 



Proofs of Evolution 93 

creates. And what man creates is more than all he in- 
herits. 

But even in bodily structure there is such a marked 
difference between man and the athropoid apes, that the 
once popular dogma that man is the direct descendant of 
the ape will have to be abandoned. No competent anato- 
mist, who examines the bodily structure of the apes and 
that of man, considers it possible that the latter descended 
from the former. The skeleton of man was made and 
adjusted for the erect position ; and the arms are entirely 
lifted above the ground instead of being required for loco- 
motion, and manifestly have other and higher uses. On 
the other hand, the skeleton of the ape is not fitted for the 
upright posture, and the forearms are essential to locomo- 
tion. In man every bone is made and adjusted to the up- 
right posture, and this position is easy and natural to 
him.* 

The upright position is manifestly that for which 
the human frame was designed. The skull of man is so 
balanced by the attachment being placed well forward on 
the neck, that it is clear that man was meant to stand 
erect. The spine is so curved that it adapts the body to 
this posture, and the long pelvis forms a broad support 
for the intestines. The foot of man from its shape indi- 
cates that it was designed to stand upon, and his hand 
was constructed for the use of tools. The human foot is 
a stepping machine, and the human hand is a special 
organ for holding tools. And man is so constructed that 
by using his feet to carry his body, he has his hands free 



* Anthropology. — Tylor. 



94 The Origin of Man 

for their special work. The skull of the ape is hung so 
far back on the neck as to clearly indicate that it was de- 
signed to go on all-fours. The anthropoid apes are 
adapted by their structure for a climbing life among the 
trees, whose branches they grasp with feet and hands. 
And when they walk upon the ground they shamble along 
clumsily by putting the bent knuckles and outer edge of 
the foot upon the ground. The hand and foot of the ape 
were designed for climbing and holding on to the 
branches of trees. Man is superior over the ape not 
merely in the vast difference of intellect between them, 
but also in his bodily structure, and the use of his hands 
in handling tools. 

The anthropoid apes require a hot climate, while man 
is at his best in a cooler climate. The apes disappeared 
from Europe as soon as the climate became adapted to 
man. The apes have remained apes, and have been con- 
tent to climb trees and sleep in the sunshine when their 
hunger is satisfied. If man began as a primitive savage, 
a dweller in caves with rudely-shaped stone implements 
for tools, he has ended by dwelling in a palace; and has 
invented all the marvelous labor-saving machines and 
the delicate instruments and useful inventions that add so 
much to the conveniences and enhance the business of 
our modern life. If man is so like the ape in structure, 
why this difference of achievement ? Why has not some 
ape made an invention, or distinguished himself in lit- 
erature? They are not of the same nature as man, they 
develop in different directions from him, they require a 
different climate, and they have achieved nothing, while 
man has achieved all the marvels of a twentieth-century 
civilization. 



Proofs of Evolution 95 

When we take into account man's mind, there is an 
immeasurable difference between man and the apes. The 
lowest man is greatly superior to the highest ape. The 
cubic capacity of the brain of the highest ape is thirty-four 
inches, and that of the lowest man is sixty-eight inches. 
From the mental point of view it is impossible to over- 
estimate the difference between man and the apes. It is 
man's brain that chiefly distinguishes him from the lower 
animals. There is here a sharp line of demarkation be- 
tween them. There is a Rubicon here that the apes have 
never been able to cross. There are gradations among 
men from the highest to the lowest, but below man there 
is an abrupt break to the apes, which have a brain capacity 
of one-half less than man. The brain of the ape reaches 
its normal development just when the brain of the child 
begins to develop. And the development of the ape from 
this time on is altogether in the animal direction. All 
apes develop away from, and not toward, the human spe- 
cies. And it naturally follows that man could not have 
been developed from them, for their development is in 
different directions and toward different ends. The 
brain of the highest ape is not superior to that of an idiot. 
In fact, the ape is an idiot, except in its natural in- 
stincts and its remarkable unintelligent imitativeness. 
The difference between the brain of the highest ape and 
the lowest man is accompanied by a difference of function 
and power that gives man his distinctive place among 
living beings. 

The similarity of anatomical structure can not be SO 
rationally accounted for as by special acts of creation by 
an intelligent Creator, who employs the same plan kA con- 
struction for different animal forms. It is reasonable to 



96 The Origin of Man 

suppose that he would employ the best plan of construc- 
tion, and not introduce changes in the bodily structure 
for mere variety's sake. The Creator is not so capricious 
that he would change his plans of operation for the pur- 
pose of introducing variety. There is always a uniform- 
ity in the works of man that stamps his individuality on 
the works of his brain and hands. And the very fact of 
similarity in the construction of the frames of various 
species stamps upon them the fact of their being the 
product of a single directing mind. If evolution has pro- 
duced such vast changes in developing the species from 
the lower to the higher forms, why has it wrought no 
changes in articulation? It is asserted that similarity of 
structure in apes and men can only be accounted for on 
the supposition of a common ancestry. The array of 
facts terminate with the assertion that they are inexpli- 
cable on the hypothesis of special creation, and can only 
be accounted for by the theory of evolution, when in 
fact they are just as readily explained by special creation 
as by evolution. 

V. RUDIMENTARY ORGANS. 

Certain rudimentary organs are found in the human 
body which evolutionists think indicate that man has had 
a lower origin. The muscles that once moved the ears, 
and the peculiar shape of the ears themselves point to the 
fact that he is the descendant of the apes. The frame of 
the boaconstrictor reveals the fact that it once had legs 
and feet, the rudiments of which still remain. The whales 
have rudiments of limbs and teeth which go to prove that 
they have been evolved from something else into their 



Proofs of Evolution 97 

present form. The rudimentary organs are traced back 
to their normal existence in remote ancestral forms. But 
rudimentary organs have originated by degeneration and 
not by evolution. These rudiments instead of supporting 
the theory of descent from the lower to the higher forms, 
prove that the animals that have rudimentary organs 
could not retain useful organs after they were once de- 
veloped. The rudimentary organs are not true to theory, 
but indicate that there has been a degeneration in the ani- 
mal kingdom instead of an evolution. 

The animals that have these rudiments are not as high 
in the scale of being as they once were in an earlier period 
of their history. There has not been, therefore, in their 
case a survival of the fittest, but a survival of the unfit. 
The boaconstrictor and the whale are not as high as they 
formerly were in the scale of being, for both of them have 
seen better days. They once walked proudly upon the 
earth, but they have been brought down to crawl upon 
the ground and swim in the seas. These animals instead 
of developing from the lower to the higher, from the sim- 
ple to the complex, have gone from the higher to the 
lower, and from the complex to the more simple. Their 
development has been downward and not upward, which 
violates the fundamental principles of evolution. Haeckel 
says: "It is probable that remarkable legions of whales 
originated out of hoofed animals, which accustomed 
themselves exclusively to an acquatic life, and therefore 
became transformed into the shape oi fish."* This is 
not true to theory, but on the contrary is diametrically 
Opposed to it. Evolution is defined as a progressive 



♦History of Creation, Vol. II. p. -'51. 
7 



98 The Origin of Man 

change from the lower to the higher, from the simple to 
the complex. When we read such a statement as this, 
made by a distinguished evolutionist, we are puzzled 
whether to sacrifice his intellect at the expense of his sin- 
cerity, or his sincerity at the expense of his intellect. 
How men that claim to be scientists can be so blinded by 
a theory as to be unable to recognize the fact that the 
rudimentary organs in the whale violate the fundamental 
principles of the theory, is beyond comprehension. These 
facts do not show an evolution, but a de-evolution, for 
animals with feet and legs are higher in the scale of be- 
ing than those that do not possess them. Some animals 
have retrograded since their origin, while others have 
been introduced that are higher in the scale of being, but 
evolution is credited with having developed them both, 
apparently, without any suspicion that those which have 
degenerated can not have been produced by evolution. 
This is trifling with the facts, and is a playing fast and 
loose with their own statements of the hypothesis. If 
evolution is a continuous progressive change, a develop- 
ment from the lower to the higher, these animals have 
not been evolved into their present condition, but have 
been brought lower in the scale of being by the law of 
degeneration. Evolutionists have either failed to see the 
inconsistency of claiming rudimentary organs as an evi- 
dence of evolution, or they have undertaken to mislead 
their readers by these claims. We could understand their 
attitude if they had ignored the matter altogether, but 
attempting to use the rudimentary organs, which are the 
result of the operations of the law of degeneration, as a 
proof of their hypothesis is beyond our comprehension. 



Proofs of Evolution 99 



VI. KM BRYOLOGY. 

The argument for evolution from embryology is 
forcefully stated by Professor Drummond in a popular 
work of his on evolution. He says : "The proposition is 
not only that man begins his earthly existence in the 
guise of a lower animal-embryo, but that in successive 
transformations of the human embryo there is reproduced 
before our eyes a visible, actual, physical representation 
of part of the life history of the world. Human embry- 
ology is a condensed account, a recapitulation or epitome, 
of some of the main chapters in the natural history of 
the world. The same process of development which once 
took thousands of years for its consummation are here 
condensed, foreshortened, concentrated into the space of 
weeks. Each platform reached by the human embryo in 
its upward course represents the embryo of some lower 
animal which in some mysterious way has played a part 
in the pedigree of the human race, which may itself have 
disappeared long since from the earth, but is now and 
forever built into the inmost being of man. The lower 
animals, each at its successive stage, have stopped short 
in their development; man has gone on. At each fresh 
advance his embryo is found again abreast of some other 
animal-embryo a little higher in organization than that 
just passed. Continuing his ascent that also is overtaken. 
the now very complex embryo making up to one animal- 
embryo after another until it has distanced all in its series 
and stands alone."* 



: Tin- .Went of Man, pp. 66, 07. 



ioo The Origin of Man 

It is assumed from such considerations as are set forth 
in the foregoing quotation that all the races of men have 
not only a common origin, but one in common with other 
animals of the same order. It is held that embryology 
proves that the origin of each individual of the race is 
animal, and that he passes in the earlier stages of his 
existence in the embryo through a process of develop- 
ment analogous to, if not identical with, those through 
which other animals of the same order pass. The human 
embryo can not at first be distinguished from the embryos 
of these animals, and in its development it retains in all 
its earlier stages a close resemblance to embryonic animal 
life. It is assumed that this proves beyond question that 
man was developed by evolution from these animals 
which he resembles in his embryonic development. As 
there is a resemblance between the embryos of man, the 
fish, and the ape, the conclusion that is arrived at is that 
man, in reaching his present high state of development, 
must have passed through these animal species from fish 
to ape and from ape to man. The conclusion that is 
drawn from these resemblances is very plausible, appears 
logical, and seems convincing. Observation shows that 
the embryo in its development becomes more and more 
differentiated from the group of embryos that it pre- 
viously resembled, and this divergence goes on until it 
reaches the species of which the embryo is a member. 
And as a matter of course species having a common an- 
cestry will exhibit a parallelism in the embryonic devel- 
opment of their individual members. 

But the explanation of these resemblances on the 
theory of special creation, which presupposes a common 
plan of procreation and gestation, is just as reasonable 



Proofs of Evolution 101 

and satisfactory. If we admit the truth of all these 
statements as they are set forth by evolutionists, it does 
not prove that man has been developed from the animals 
that he resembles in his embryonic development. If 
man is a special creation after a common plan of procrea- 
tion and gestation, this would account for all the re- 
semblances of embryonic growth between him and the 
lower animals. Mere resemblance of development proves 
nothing. The resemblance shows nothing more than 
that various animal forms are produced after the same 
general plan, and not that one has necessarily developed 
from the other. Take away the preconceived notion of 
evolution and there would be no special notice taken of 
these resemblances. Animals do not pass from one to 
another in their development, and never have done so, 
there is only a mere resemblance in the process of their 
development. 

Special stress is laid upon the so-called rudimentary 
tail and the gill arches that appear in the development of 
the human embryo. These are taken as irrefutable proof 
of the fact that man developed from a fish through a 
tailed ancestor. These so-called gill arches are linear ver- 
tical depressions that appear in the region of the head in 
the early development of the embryo. These depressions 
determine the arrangement of various organs of the head 
region. They have never had any respiratory functions 
to perform. They make their appearance, persist for a 
time, and are then applied to some entirely different pur- 
pose. Indeed, in the human embryo they are not really 
clefts, but are merely grooves. In the embryo o\ man 
there are four of these grooves developed on each side of 
the body and five branchial arches. And these grooves 



102 The Origin of Man 

that appear in the early development of the embryo are 
converted in its later development into special structures. 
These grooves may be looked upon as the markings of 
nature in the animal pattern of the places where the future 
members of the face and head shall appear. They become 
the ears, nose, mouth, and jaws of the fully developed 
embryo. Haeckel is an authority that evolutionists will 
accept without question. And he says : "The first pair 
of gill arches differentiate into the rudiments of the up- 
per and lower jaws. The gill openings disappear by con- 
crescence. From the gill arches develop the jaws, the 
tongue, and the bonelets of the ear."* We learn there- 
fore from the admission of evolutionists themselves that 
these grooves are not proof that the human embryo was 
developed from a fish ancestry, but that instead they are 
merely the outlines of the future organs of the face and 
head. 

The rudimentary tail, which is said to be absorbed 
in the later development of the child, is only the exten- 
sion of the backbone, and is not a proof of man's develop- 
ment from a tailed ancestor. The caudal filament, which 
is prominent in the embryonic development before the 
limbs have made their appearance, may have some re- 
semblance to a tail. The frame of the body is formed be- 
fore its members. And the lower end of the spinal col- 
umn projects below the frame of the body, the lower 
limbs having not yet begun to develop, which gives the 
filament the appearance of a tail. But there is not a sin- 
gle joint of this column lost or absorbed in the future de- 
velopment of the child. The adult has precisely the same 



^Evolution of Man, Vol. I, p. 404. 



Proofs of Evolution 103 

number of joints that first appear in the embryo. It is 
true that the caudal filament gradually disappears in the 
later stages of development, but it is not by absorption. 
As the lower limbs begin to grow the so-called tail is 
submerged and concealed beneath adjacent parts as the 
muscles and tissues are taken on the frame of the body. 
It remains in the adult as it was in the embryo except it 
is concealed in the adult, while it is prominent in the first 
stages of development in the embryo. Before the con- 
clusions were drawn in support of evolution from these 
alleged facts inquiry should have been made as to their 
truth. It does not tend to inspire confidence in evolu- 
tionists to read their assertions that man has been evolved 
from the lower animals because there is a recapitulation 
in his embryonic development of the animal forms 
through which he has passed in becoming a man, and 
find on investigation that there is no real scientific basis 
for such broad assertions. 

But the alleged facts might all be true and not prove 
that man was evolved from the lower animals. There are 
instances of early development in the young of animals 
where there is no recapitulation in the adult animal. The 
young sea squirt, for example, has a backbone, but the 
mature animal has no trace of this rudimentary backbone. 
The fact confronts us that the young of an invertebrate 
class of animals anticipates the backbone of the coming 
vertebrate animal. But this organ disappears in the ma- 
ture animal precisely as the rudimentary tail is alleged 
to disappear in man by absorption as the embryo devel- 
ops. But there can be no recapitulation about the young 
sea squirt, lor there is nothing to be recapitulated. Us 
rudamentary backbone precedes all vertebrate animals, 



104 The Origin of Man 

and it is found nowhere else in invertebrates. It does not 
show any ancestral forms through which it has developed. 
The fact of the rudimentary backbone of the young sea 
squirt destroys the force of the argument for evolution 
from embryology. If the young sea squirt has a rudi- 
mentary backbone that was not handed down to him by 
some remote ancestor, may not man have a caudal fila- 
ment and gill arches without recapitulating some tailed 
ancestor or gilled amphibian ? 

Much has been made of the argument from embry- 
ology by a certain class of evolutionists, but the argu- 
ment has been greatly overworked. There is nothing in 
the argument, because it is not based on fact. There is 
some resemblance between the development of the embryo 
of man and the embryos of other species. But the re- 
semblance in embryonic development is not inconsistent 
with the theory of special creation. But these mere re- 
semblances have been exaggerated into pictorial repre- 
sentations of the development of man from the lower or- 
der of beings. Spencer recognized the fact that entirely 
too much had been made of these slight resemblances in 
the embryonic development of man with the lower ani- 
mals. He says : "An impression has been given by those 
who have popularized the statements of embryologists, 
that during its development, each higher organism passes 
through stages in which it resembles the adult forms of 
lower organisms — that the embryo of man is at one time 
like a fish, and at another time like a reptile. This is not 
a fact. The fact established is, that up to a certain point 
the embryos of a man and a fish continue similar, and 
that then differences begin to appear and increase— the 
pne embryo approaching more and more towards the 



Proofs of Evolution 105 

form of a fish, the other diverging from it more and more. 
And so with the resemblances to the more advanced types. 
. . . The reader must also be cautioned against ac- 
cepting this generalization as exact. The likenesses are 
not precise but approximate. Only leading characteris- 
tics are the same; not all the details."* The fact is, 
that at the beginning of embryonic development it is dif- 
ficult to distinguish between the embryos of certain forms, 
but as they develop we can distinguish the differences 
between them more and more, until we can determine the 
species to which they belong. In this development, as 
there is a common plan of procreation and gestation, the 
different embryos bear some resemblance to each other. 
And in the human embryo we notice that the slight 
grooves in the region of the head resemble the gills of a 
fish, and that the little end of the backbone before the 
lower limbs have begun to develop looks like a tail. But 
the embryo of one animal never develops into another. 
The adult animal is in the embryo latently, and always 
develops into the species to which it belongs. That in this 
development there is some similarity of appearance does 
not prove that there has at some time been a common an- 
cestral form from which they have developed. There is 
a resemblance between a wheel -barrow, a cart, and a 
wagon, but it does not follow that because the wheel- 
barrow has one wheel, and the cart two, and the wagon 
four, that the wagon was evolved from the single wheeled 
barrow through the two-wheeled cart. It is the precon- 
ceived theory that lends all the force to this argument 
from embryonic resemblances. It is drawing on the pre- 



'Principles of Biology, Vol. I p. 143. 



106 The Origin of Man 

conceived hypothesis, in order to give force to the argu- 
ments by which it is sought to establish its truth. 

VII. ANALOGY. 

The theory of the descent of man as an animal con- 
sists in assigning to him a certain pedigree, which traces 
his origanism through a long series of animals back to 
the lowest and crudest forms of animal life. An analogy 
is drawn from the development of an individual animal 
from the germ cell to adulthood and the development of 
the species in geological time. The argument from 
analogy is clearly set forth by Darwin in his illustration 
of the growth of a tree. He says : "The affinities of all 
beings of the same class have been sometimes represented 
by a great tree. I believe that this simile largely speaks 
the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent 
existing species ; and those produced in former years may 
represent the long succession of extinct species. At each 
period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to 
branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill- the sur- 
rounding branches, in the same manner as the species and 
groups of species have at all times overmastered other 
species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided 
into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser 
branches, were themselves once, when the tree was young, 
budding twigs; and this connection of the former and 
present buds by ramifying branches may well represent 
the classification of all extinct and living species in groups 
subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs that flourished 
when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now 
grown into great branches, yet survive and bear the other 



Proofs of Evolution 107 

branches ; so with the species that lived during the long- 
passed geological periods, very few have left living and 
modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree, 
many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; 
and these fallen branches of various sizes may represent 
those whole orders, families, and genera which have now 
no living representatives, and which are known to us only 
in a fossil state. ... As buds give rise by growth 
to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and over- 
top on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation 
I believe it has been with the great tree of life, which fills 
with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, 
and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beau- 
tiful ramifications."* 

This supposed analogy will not hold, for the cases are 
not parallel. There are three distinct kinds of develop- 
ment in the realm of life, first, the development of the in- 
dividual animal from the germ cell, second, the develop- 
ment of the animal from its infancy to adulthood, and 
third, the development of animals in geological time from 
the earliest and simplest forms to the modern and com- 
plex living animals. The growth of the tree is from the 
seed that includes it potentially, root, trunk, branch, limb, 
twig, bud, and leaf; and the development of the tree is 
but the unfolding of that which was contained in the 
seed in embryo. When you are in possession of the seed 
you possess the tree. All that is required is sufficient 
time for its development. The tree may be employed to 
illustrate two kinds of development, that of the animal 
from the germ cell and that of the young into the adult 



*The Origin of Species, Vol. 1, pp. io_\ 163. 



io8 The Origin of Man 

animal ; but it. is not an illustration of the third kind of 
development, that of animals in geological time. The 
twigs, the branches, and the buds naturally develop from 
the seed, and as the tree matures they develop into trunk, 
limbs, and branches. But they are all contained in and 
grow out of the individual seed, and have nothing what- 
ever to do in producing any other kind of tree. The 
other species of tree have developed in precisely the same 
way, and no tree is ever produced from the seed of an- 
other and distinct kind of tree. The oak always grows 
out of an acorn, and the beech never is produced from 
any seed but the beech-nut. And this is precisely the way 
in which the animal species have been produced by gen- 
eration, every one after his kind, and independent of 
every other kind. 

This method of accounting for the origin of the spe- 
cies necessitates an unbroken connection of lives with 
lives. And it must be shown that the species have grown 
out of each other as the branches have grown out of the 
trunk of the tree. There must be a satisfactory explana- 
tion of the fact that distinct species of animals never pro- 
duce any but their own type. We see that in the case of 
the tree, the seed invariably produces a definite and uni- 
form result. But in the development of the species there 
has been a progressive and varying result. There have 
been developed, in geological time, untold millions of 
distinct species. The force that has developed the species 
has operated in an entirely different manner from the ac- 
tion of the life force in the seed which produces the tree. 
If so many different species have arisen in mutual inde- 
pendence, the affinities of the animal kingdom can not 
be represented by the symbol of a tree. The development 



Proofs of Evolution 109 

of the individual animal is made the basis of analogy be- 
tween its development, and the succession of animals in 
geological time. The cases are not parallel, and there- 
fore the analogy falls to the ground. 

When the development of one animal from the embryo 
to adulthood is compared with the progress of animals in 
geological times, where the conditions and causes at work 
are dissimilar, the reasoning is fallacious. We have no 
evidence that the changes required have actually occurred 
in any gives case, this is all taken for granted. The 
analogy has no foundation in fact, but is the result of the 
arbitrary interpretation of certain limited facts. The 
reasoning is from the partial and incomplete to the univer- 
sal. It raises the infinite superstructure of a universal 
law upon the finite and comparatively narrow foundation 
of a few carefully ascertained facts. The analogy be- 
tween the development of an individual animal from the 
embryo to adulthood and the succession of animals in 
geological time is only apparent and not real. The con- 
clusion includes more than is contained in the premises. 
From a few isolated facts, that can as readily be ex- 
plained by the theory of special creation, they draw uni- 
versal conclusions. Evolutionists reason that, as far as 
they can test the processes of nature by observation, the 
method by which nature produces the individual animal is 
by evolution ; and, where no test can be applied to her 
processes or observation be made, analogy requires that 
we suppose that she proceeds by the same method. And 
if the cases were parallel, the analogy would hold good, 
but as they are not, the reasoning is false. 

Evolutionists extend the method o\ nature from the 
present into the past, and accept as probable the unknown 



no The Origin of Man 

sequences of development from the lowest form in the 
beginning up to man at the present. This method of rea- 
soning is placed on a level with the reasoning from anal- 
ogy by which geologists apply modern causes to explain 
geological formations, which is perfectly legitimate rea- 
soning. But when the development of the individual ani- 
mal from the germ cell to adulthood is compared with the 
progress of the species themselves in geological time, the 
reasoning is fallacious because the conditions and causes 
are altogether different. Evolutionists have been carried 
away by this method of reasoning, and have failed to per- 
ceive that there is merely a general resemblance between 
processes altogether different, and therefore entirely dif- 
ferent in their causes. They assume that successive types 
of animals are different stages of evolution, when there is 
no evidence to support any such conclusion. The devel- 
opment of the individual animal can not be regarded as 
the precise equivalent of the series of changes by which 
the species were produced in the course of geological his- 
tory. Analogous processes are considered to be identical 
without regard to the different conditions under which 
they operate. And it is alleged that present forms have 
arisen out of past forms. They obliterate marked differ- 
ences and arrange all the species in a connected series. 
They argue upon mere probabilities, from the known to 
the unknown, and conclude that the present species must 
have been developed from those of the past by the proc- 
ess of evolution because analogy warrants the assump- 
tion. The repetition of the probable in the theory has 
been carried to the verge of the improbable. 

Evolutionists arrange everything in a progressive 
series, which goes on from one stage of development to 



Proofs of Evolution in 

another. They trace the tree from the seed, the animal 
from the germ cell, the species from the primordial form, 
and the planetary system from the primitive nebula. And 
their assumptions are all substantiated by a process of 
reasoning peculiar to themselves. They reason con- 
stantly in a circle. And make frequent use of such 
phrases as these: "It can not be doubted," "we may 
therefore assume," "we may confidently assert," "we may 
readily suppose," "this afterwards assumes." They are 
highly proficient in the art of legerdemain. These phrases 
are equivalent to the sleight-of-hand performer's presto, 
change.* The following quotation from Le Conte is a 
fair sample of their method of reasoning: "Now, far 
back 'in the dark backward and abysm of time,' there was 
a time when fishes were the only representatives of the 
vertebrate plan of structure. Evidently at that time this 
plan of structure, or machine, was adapted only to loco- 
motion in water. It was a swimming machine. Ages on 
ages passed — aeons upon aeons — until the time was ripe 
and the earth was prepared, and reptiles were introduced. 
Now we have a new function, that of locomotion on land. 
Do we find a new organ introduced for this purpose? 
By no means. The same organ which was a swimming 
organ before, by certain modification of its parts, with- 
out essential change, becomes a crawling organ. Ages on 
ages pass away — aeons on aeons — until the time was ripe 
and the earth was prepared, and birds were introduced. 
I I ere we have a new, a beautiful, a wonderful function — 
that of locomotion in air. Shall we not have a new organ 
lor this? l>v no means. The same organ is again 



*Modern Ideas of Evolution.— Dawson, 



H2 The Origin of Man 

slightly modified, and becomes the wing of a bird. Ages 
upon ages pass away — aeons on aeons — until the time 
was fully ripe and the earth was fully prepared, and man 
was introduced ; man made in the image of God ; man, en- 
dowed with reason and capable of infinite progress ; man 
the interpreter of nature, and the worshiper of God. 
Now we want another and most exquisite organ, delicate 
and dexterous, which shall be the willing tool and the co- 
operator with the mind of man in his progress — we want 
a hand. But nature's laws are not violated even for man ; 
and again the same organ is slightly modified for this 
purpose. And thus in the hand of man, in the fore foot 
of the quadruped, in the paw of the reptile, in the wing 
of a bird, and in the fin of a fish the same organ is modi- 
fied for various purposes. What I have said of this mem- 
ber is true of the whole structure."* 

There is not the slightest proof adduced to show how 
these changes took place. The evolutionist waves his 
magic wand and the fin of a fish changes through a paw 
and a wing into the hand of man. While you are looking 
on a fish with a fin, it is transformed into a reptile with 
a paw. And as you gaze upon the reptile crawling on 
the ground, suddenly it is metamorphosed into a bird 
with wings, and you see it flying through the air. But be- 
fore you have become accustomed to this change it has 
become a quadruped, walking on the ground and climbing 
the trees. And you hardly have time to become recon- 
ciled to this new form, until the quadruped vanishes from 
your view, and a man stands before you in all the perfec- 
tion of the human form. These various changes have 



^Religion and Science, pp. S7, 5§. 



Proofs of Evolution 113 

been brought about by the art of legerdemain. All that 
demands proof is quietly taken for granted, and the fish 
grows before your very eyes through these various forms 
into a perfect man. The evolutionists show in this man- 
ner how man may have been introduced. They describe 
conditions that may have existed, influences that 
may have been at work, and set forth a series of transfor- 
mations that may have taken place. On the assumption 
that all these changes have actually occurred, we can un- 
derstand how man has been produced. But all this, how- 
ever, is a mere matter of assumption. It can neither be 
proved that these conditions existed, that these forces 
were at work, nor that this chain of transformations 
was ever consummated. Evolutionists profess to be as- 
tonished that their assumptions should be called into ques- 
tion. And when proof is demanded for these marvelous 
transformations, we are informed that no proof is needed. 
There is a process in nature — evolution ; there is a prod- 
uct of nature — man; and the existence of the product, 
man, can only be explained by the process, evolution. The 
fish, the reptile, the bird, and the ape are all the products 
of evolution. The ape is somewhat like the man in his 
bodily structure; therefore, reasoning from analogy, man 
is the product of evolution. And this conclusion must 
be accepted, for there is no other way to account for him, 
except on the hypothesis of evolution. When we divest 
the arguments of evolutionists of their suppositions the 
theory falls to the ground, for there is nothing to support 
it but these ingenious assumptions. 

The inference that because certain forms of life have 
succeeded each other in geological time, they have been 
derived from each other is unwarranted. There is no 
8 



U4 The Origin of Man 

proof from mere succession in time. The incoming wave 
of the sea does not produce the outgoing wave, nor does 
the receding wave produce the next advancing wave, 
though they follow each other in rapid succession. The 
tides succeed each other, but the ebb tide does not produce 
the flood tide, nor the flood tide the ebb. There is a suc- 
cession of day and night, but day does not cause night, 
nor night day, though they invariably follow each other. 
The same is true of the seasons. Winter is followed by 
spring, and spring by summer, and summer by fall, but 
one season does not cause another. The seasons, though 
they follow each other in endless succession, one season 
does not produce its successor. The cause that produces 
the tides, the succession of day and night, and the changes 
of the seasons is found in the sun and the solar system. 
The cause of these successive changes is found outside of 
the changes themselves, in a power that is above and in- 
dependent of these phenomena. There have been suc- 
cessive epochs in geology, the Azoic, the Eozoic, the Silu- 
rian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, the Mezozoic, the 
Cenozoic, the Quaternary, but one period is not the cause 
of another, though it may immediately succeed it. There 
is a succession in the development of the individual ani- 
mal, the germ cell, the embryo, the infancy, the adoles- 
cence, the adulthood, but, strictly speaking, the one does 
not produce the other. The cause that produces these 
successive stages of development in the individual ani- 
mal is life. There have been a succession of animals in 
geological time. The fish was succeeded by the reptile, 
the reptile by the bird, the bird by the quadruped, and 
the quadruped by man, but this succession in geological 
time proves nothing. The life of one geological period 



Proofs of Evolution 115 

has not been the outgrowth of the life of the preceding 
period. The animal species of one period have not 
evolved into the animal species of the following period. 
The cause that produced the various species in the suc- 
ceeding qDOchs of the earth's development was external 
to, and above these forms of life themselves. 

The apes, however nearly allied to man in his physical 
structure, can not be his ancestors. If they are related 
to him at all the relationship is extremely remote. The 
apes belong to the same order, but, according to> the teach- 
ings of evolutionists themselves, they can not be the an- 
cestors of man. For the apes, according to the evolution- 
ary hypothesis, must themselves be the terminal ends of 
distinct lines of derivation from previous forms. The 
apes are a branch of the tree of life that has grown out 
from the main trunk, while man has continued to de- 
velop until he has reached the topmost branch of the tree. 
To change the figure, the other species after proceeding so 
far on the main line of the railroad of life were switched 
off on to a branch line. They diverged from the main 
line of development, and ceased to improve. The species 
from which man was developed kept on the main line of 
development, and reached the terminal at the head of the 
species. This species was the single exception to the 
rule. And, contrary to the usual method of reasoning, 
the rule proves the exception, instead of the exception 
proving the rule. But how did this supposititious man 
keep marching on his upward way, while all other species 
stood still, or became extinct? The reply to this question 
is that he was on the road, while all the other species 
were so unfortunate as to take a branch line. And they 
reached perfection when they attained such endowments 



n6 The Origin of Man 

as fitted them for their mode of life. But this answer 
is a begging of the question. This exception looks very 
much like there must have been some higher power ex- 
ternal to man that caused the difference between him and 
the other species. If evolution is a universal law, why 
is it that it has so signally failed in its operations with 
the great majority of the species? The law operates for 
a time, and brings the species to a certain degree of per- 
fection, but is unable to do anything more for them. 
And we have as a result of this failure, all the lower 
species surviving, when they ought to have been fully 
developed into men, or have been ]ong since exterminated. 
There ought to be but one species on the earth at the 
present time, if evolution is true. All the unfit should 
have perished long ago, and only the fittest should have 
survived. The theory of evolution, consequently, is in- 
consistent with itself. 



FACTS AGAINST EVOLUTION 

117 



"Every hypothesis is bound to explain, or, at any rate, not be 
inconsistent with, the whole of the facts which it professes to ac- 
count for; and if there is a single one of these facts which can be 
shown to be inconsistent with (I do not merely mean inexplicable 
by, but contrary to) the hypothesis, the hypothesis falls to the 
ground, — it is worth nothing. One fact with which it is positively 
inconsistent is worth as much, and as powerful in negativing the 
hypothesis, as five hundred. If I am right in thus defining the obli- 
gations of a hypothesis, Mr. Darwin, in order to place his views 
beyond the reach of all possible assault, ought to be able to demon- 
strate the possibility of developing from a particular stock by se- 
lective breeding, two forms which should either be unable to cross 
one with another, or whose cross-bred offspring should be infertile 
with one another. For, you see, if you have not done that you have 
not strictly fulfilled all the conditions of the problem ; you have not 
shown that you can produce, by the cause assumed, all the phe- 
nomena you have in nature. . . . But has this been done? or 
what is really the state of the case? It is simply that, so far as we 
have gone yet with breeding, we have not produced from a common 
stock two breeds which are not more or less fertile with one an- 
other." — Huxley. 

"Now in the actual praxis of apprehending the world, no one 
supposes that a being a can change without some principle of change 
and ad infinitum, so that at last it would become a z in which no 
recollection of a is any longer to be discovered. The sphere of 
change is universally found to be limited in such a way that any a 
changes only into a, ai, a2, . . . any b only into /3, jSi, £2, 
and in general, every real being changes only into such a 'closed 
series' of forms as, taken collectively, are deducible from the original 
nature of the being; while no being can ever pass out of the series 
of its own forms over into a series of forms belonging to another 
being."— Lotze, 



118 



FACTS AGAINST EVOLUTION 

THEORIES must be brought face to face with the 
facts, and, if they are inconsistent with the facts, 
they must be rejected. A theory before it can be ac- 
cepted as true must explain all the facts that are related to 
it, or that are in any way dependent upon it. Facts are 
such stubborn things that the most promising theories are 
powerless to overthrow them. It has been admitted by 
evolutionists that the failure of their theory to account for 
a single important fact is sufficient of itself to overthrow 
the hypothesis. 

Darwin says : "If it could be demonstrated that any 
complex organ existed, which could not possibly be 
formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my 
theory would absolutely break down."* 

Lyman Abbott, a theistic evolutionist, makes a like 
admission : "When science," he says, "seeks to formulate 
a law of life, it succeeds only in case the law provides for 
all the phenomena of life. If some of these phenomena 
are inconsistent with the supposed law, the supposed law 
does not exist. "f 

There are inexorable facts that array themselves 
against the hypothesis of evolution. There are a number 
of facts that are not merely inexplicable by the theory, 
but they are diametrically opposed to it. Evolutionists. 

:i The Origin of Species, Vol. I, p. 229. 
t'Fhe Evolution of Christianity, p. 240. 

119 



120 The Origin of Man 

however, persist in holding the theory, notwithstanding 
that it does not explain all the facts connected with the 
phenomena of nature. But as long as these facts are left 
without a satisfactory explanation, the hypothesis can 
not be regarded as the universal law of nature. We shall 
present here, not merely a single fact with which the 
theory is inconsistent, but a number for which it can 
give no satisfactory explanation, though it is admitted 
that one such fact is sufficient to discredit the hypothesis. 

I. ITS FAR-REACHING ASSUMPTIONS. 

The first fact against the theory to which your at- 
tention is called are the assumptions of evolutionists in 
order to establish their theory. They take for granted 
the universe in nebula and life in its simplest form. And 
in these phenomena they find the promise and potency 
of all things animate and inanimate. They contend that 
the existing earth and all the species that have inhabited 
it were evolved from these phenomena by the accumu- 
lating effects of innumerable small changes. If the uni- 
verse was evolved from nebulous matter, the ultimate 
result must have been contained in the nebula. If the 
various forms of life were evolved from a primordial cell, 
they must have been contained in that cell. In the cause 
must be found the sufficient reason for all that flows from 
it. There can be evolved from nature only that which 
has been involved in nature. Evolutionists, to begin with, 
assume the efficient cause, the material cause, the process, 
and all the products. The efficient cause expresses the 
sufficient reason both for the results achieved and the 
means necessary for their achievement. The process de- 



Facts Against Evolution 121 

notes the method by which the efficient cause has trans- 
formed the material cause into the product. The product 
includes the collective results, that is, the universe, life, the 
species, man, the mind, and the history of the world. 
Evolution must not only account for the universe and 
life, but all the achievements of man of whatever nature — 
man with his empires, his intellectual achievements, his 
arts, his inventions, his ethical ideals, his laws, and his 
religions. 

The hypothesis makes that first which of necessity 
must have originated subsequent to intelligence and crea- 
tive power. Mind and final causes have preceded matter 
and life, but evolutionists make matter and material 
causes absolutely prior to intelligence and design in the 
order of the universe. Matter and energy must have 
been fully perfected before there could have been the be- 
ginnings of life. And matter and energy must have been 
arranged in such a manner as to prepare the earth to be 
the abode of life. Evolutionists reject these reasonable 
and necessary conclusions, and hold that in material 
atoms reside the promise and potency of all things. There 
is no conception more necessary to the theory of evolution 
than this potency, for without it the changes and con- 
tinuity of the development would be impossible. This 
energy is the cause and its convertibility the form of all 
physical changes. The force is constant in quantity, in- 
destructible, and persistent in essence, but infinitely varied 
in mode; and, though it is ever changing in form, yet it 
never ceases to be capable of further change. 

This potency that resides in material atoms accounts 
for nascent life. Spencer states the position of evolu- 
tionists in the following language: "Every kind of being 



122 The Origin of Man 

is conceived as a product of modifications wrought by in- 
sensible gradations on a pre-existing kind of being; and 
this holds as fully of the supposed 'commencement of or- 
ganic life/ as of all subsequent developments of organic 
life." Grant the existence of matter and energy, and the 
starting of motion at some definite time, and the present 
order might flow from these by the processes of evolu- 
tion ; providing that an adequate amount of force was sup- 
plied at the beginning, or was furnished from time to 
time as needed, in order to maintain the process of de- 
velopment. Grant life, in some simple form, with the 
necessary energy to keep up the vital functions, and all 
subsequent life might be accounted for by this theory. 

The assumptions of evolutionists may appear to be 
insignificant, but they are unlimited in scope. They de- 
mand as a basis of their theory a universe of matter and 
energy, and further require that this mass of matter be 
set in motion. Given these as a starting point, they un- 
dertake to show how the forces of nature have marked 
the history of the universe. They teach that all the 
phenomena of nature are the result of purely mechanical 
causes. In nature, after the first animal form is brought 
into existence, there is a perpetual change that is marked 
by stages of increasing complexity and diversibility of 
being. Life attains a greater fullness and richness as it 
advances. The process of evolution is an ever ascending 
process from effect to differing effects. Every effect in 
its turn becomes a cause, and hence there is no cause but 
transmutation. There must have been a time when there 
was no effect to become a cause, no pre-existent being 
to modify an existent being, but it is claimed that the 
process operated just the same in the origin of life as it 



Facts Against Evolution 123 

does after the first organisms have been brought into ex- 
istence. And, if this be true, it makes nothing modify 
something. But it may be that Spencer meant that eter- 
nal energy modified material atoms, and by this means the 
first organism was produced. Energy transforms the 
atoms of matter into the primordial cell, and this simple 
form evolves the next higher form, and this higher form 
the next higher form, until the present high state of de- 
velopment is reached. The energy is conceived to be per- 
sistent in its operations. And this persistency of energy 
includes both the indestructibility of matter and the ab- 
solute continuity of motion. 

If the earth's life was developed from a primordial 
form, it follows that it must have been contained in this 
organism with sufficient energy to account for all the sub- 
sequent development through all the innumerable forms 
of life until the present high development was attained. 
We can get out of the primordial cell no more than was 
contained in it. There can be no evolution unless there 
has been an equal involution. If the universe was de- 
veloped from nebulous matter, everything in the universe 
must have been present potentially in nebula, as the plant 
is potentially in the seed. Reason demands that in every 
instance the cause shall equal the effect it produces. 
Whatever may have been first in the universe must have 
contained all that has since been evolved from it. If in- 
ertia is a property of matter, the power to evolve life can 
not be. Spencer seems at times to have recognized how 
hazardous it was to argue that because there has been 
development after the origin of the first form, that this 
development originated matter and life. He saw the 
necessity of a power outside of, and independent of mat- 



124 The Origin of Man 

ter, hence he conceived this eternal energy as the source 
of all things. There must be a first cause, and this first 
cause must contain, potentially, all that has since been 
evolved. He held that the universe was brought into ex- 
istence by an unconscious force which generated mind 
and consciousness. This eternal energy is the essential 
and determining factor of everything in the universe. 

Spencer says : "The first tiny animal, no larger than 
a pin head, . . . is so slightly removed from inorganic 
matter that it must have required but a slight effort of 
nature to usher it into being from non-living matter, 
hence it is not an unreasonable supposition.'' But there 
is a spanless chasm separating living from non-living 
matter, however small the living atom may be conceived 
to be. It took the same infinite power to produce life in a 
minute form, that it did to create the most gigantic ani- 
mal that ever trod the earth. Evolution takes for granted 
a living animal the size of a pin head. And this does not 
seem to be asking much, but it is the same old story of 
the camel's asking the privilege of putting his nose in 
out of the cold, the whole body quickly follows. It is 
not a tiny animal no longer than a pin head that is as- 
sumed, but all subsequent life as well. If the world's 
life was produced from a tiny form the size of a pin head, 
this first form must have contained in itself the life of the 
world with the power to produce it. In this tiny animal, 
according to the teaching of the system, lies all future life 
potentially, hence to assume it is to assume all the forms 
of life. And it would require as great power to produce 
this simple form as to produce all the forms of life at a 
given time, for they are all included in this form latently. 
The original potentialities of the system include all its 



Facts Against Evolution 125 

actualities. And for this reason there is no essential 
progress in the world's development according to the 
hypothesis of evolution. As simple as the supposition 
seems to be, when you come to examine into it carefully, 
it is a tremendous assumption. Why did it originate? 
What caused its origin ? It is virtually the assumption of 
the creationists without an adequate cause to produce the 
creation. It is not only the tiny animal no larger than 
a pin head that is assumed, but the environment in which 
it lives, the energy to work out the results that have been 
achieved, the time sufficient to accomplish these results, 
and the far-reaching and diverse results themselves. If 
what was before life and mind was their cause, it must 
have been invested with the qualities to accomplish these 
results. If all animal life can be traced back to a single 
cell, out of which it developed in pursuance of certain 
laws of nature, then all life was contained in that germ 
cell. And, therefore, what evolutionists call the "lowest" 
organisms are in reality the "highest," if by highest we 
mean those forms that are most inclusive. Unless this 
is the case, evolutionists obtain more from this simple 
form than was contained in it. The thing is simply in- 
credible that in this tiny animal was embodied the future 
life, mind, and history of the world. But this is what 
the theory of evolution requires us to believe, if we ac- 
cept the hypothesis. Therefore, the assumption of an 
animal the size of a pin head is an unreasonable assump- 
tion. 

The demands that evolution makes on the intelligence 
of mankind far surpass in magnitude the difficulties that 
may be involved in the hypothesis of special creation, h 
is claimed that if the first form no larger than a pin head 



126 The Origin of Man 

is granted, that the process of evolution will account for 
all the subsequent forms of life. But, even granting a 
first form, it does not follow that all subsequent develop- 
ment can be accounted for in this way. There must be 
sufficient energy supplied to keep this first form march- 
ing forward through the ages up to the present time and 
on into the future as long as the present order of things 
shall continue. But Spencer says : "We are able to con- 
ceive how organic compounds were endowed, and how by 
a continuance of the process, the nascent life displayed in 
these becomes gradually more pronounced." But the 
ability to conceive how a thing may have taken place 
is no evidence that it ever did transpire. All the organ- 
isms of the past, present, and future were potentially 
present in this first form of life. There must, therefore, 
have been stored up in this minute animal the pent-up 
forces of the ages. To this simple form is attributed in- 
finite power, that it may create all other forms of life. 

The assumption that this first living organism was 
the result of the laws of nature acting upon inorganic 
matter and combining its lifeless particles in such a way 
as to generate life, is to attribute to these laws the pos- 
session of life. For the laws of nature that could trans- 
form and shape lifeless matter in such a way as to pro- 
duce a living being must possess life, for nothing can im- 
part that which it does not possess, unless there can be 
an effect without an adequate cause. The powers that are 
assumed for the laws of nature involve the very idea 
which we understand by the personal attributes of an all- 
wise, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator. The forces of 
nature are conceived to accomplish all that special crea- 
tionists contend was accomplished by the Almighty. And 



Facts Against Evolution 127 

the assumption that a single organic being was evolved 
out of inorganic matter by an eternal energy is the equiva- 
lent of a direct personal act of an intelligent creative will. 
In attributing the origin of life to the operations of the 
eternal laws of nature, nature is converted into a personal 
God, having all the powers of the Almighty Creator. 

The claim that there is an eternal energy back of na- 
ture, unknown and unknowable, is a begging of the whole 
question at issue. It takes the precise grounds of the 
creationists, while denying the existence of a personal 
Creator. The potency, the energy, the unknown power, 
whatever it may be designated, is the correlative of the 
Creator in the theory of special creation. The assump- 
tion of a first form by evolutionists is identical with the 
assumption of a Supreme First Cause by creationists. 
There is no proof attempted for this first form by evolu- 
tionists. It is purely a creature of their imagination. In 
the assumption of the existence of Almighty God, in 
order to account for creation, there is assumed an ade- 
quate cause for all the works of creation. But evolution- 
ists have nothing whatever that will enable them to ac- 
count for the organic and inorganic world except as they 
encroach on the hypothesis of special creation. Creation 
was not a completed act when the earth and life were 
spoken into existence, but it has rather been a continuous 
process aided by new impulses given to it at stated inter- 
vals. God supervises his works and directs the forces of 
nature continuously, and, if he were to cease to act, life 
would perish from the earth and the universe would 
cease to be. The evolutionists assume more than the 
creationists. If evolution is true, there must be in the 
first form the promise and potency of all subsequent life. 



128 The Origin of Man 

But according to special creation, God exercises a con- 
tinuous supervision, and holds nature, animate and inan- 
imate, in the hollow of his hand. 



II. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN BREAKS IN THE 
PROCESS OE DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH 
THE THEORY. 

If evolution is a continuous progressive change, there 
can be no breaks in the process. The theory requires an 
unbroken continuity in the progress of the development. 
An unbroken continuity and a continuous progressive 
change are a contradiction of terms, but the advocates of 
evolution fail to recognize the absurdity in their theory 
as they have defined it. Darwin sets forth the position 
held by all evolutionists in regard to the impossibility of 
there being any breaks or sudden leaps in the process of 
development. He says: "Why should not nature take 
a sudden leap from structure to structure ? On the theory 
of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she 
should not; for natural selection acts only by taking ad- 
vantage of slight successive variations. She can never take 
a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and 
sure, though slow steps."* But there are quite a number 
of sudden leaps, however, that nature must have taken 
in order to bring about the high state of development that 
exists at the present time. There are a number of breaks 
in the chain of development for which the theory of evo- 
lution can give no satisfactory explanation. 

(i) There is a break between matter in the gaseous 



*The Origin of Species, Vol. I, p. 244. 



Facts Against Evolution 129 

state and matter as it now exists. It is possible that in 
the primitive nebulous condition of the earth that there 
were fewer elements in existence than there are in the 
present high state of the earth's development. It is pos- 
sible that our globe, when it began its existence as vapor- 
ous mist, was composed of only a few chemical elements 
such as oxygen and hydrogen. And from these few sim- 
ple elements all the other elements were formed. The 
change of one simple substance into another element re- 
quires a miracle. It implies the destruction of the old 
and the creation of the new element. And between the 
old and the new there would be a sudden leap for which 
evolution can not account. There must have been a 
series of leaps from the few chemical elements in the be- 
ginning to the nearly eighty elements that exist at the 
present time. 

The science of chemistry teaches that matter is of 
different kinds, and that one element can not be converted 
into another unless it has an affinity for the other element. 
There are elements that can be combined, and form com- 
binations that are more or less stable. There are other 
elements that have a horror for each other, and it is an 
impossibility for them to be combined. All the matter 
now composing the earth was once in a gaseous state. 
Granting that all the chemical elements existed in a dif- 
fused condition in nebulous matter, at some definite time 
in the world's history they were combined in their present 
order. Chemical affinity may possibly account for the 
present order. But if the elements were once widely 
diffused in space, the innumerable changes and combina- 
tions that have since taken place have been by sudden 
leaps. Between diffusion in nebulous matter and co- 
9 



130 The Origin of Man 

hesion in the present chemical order there is a break that 
violates the fundamental principles of evolution. If all 
the chemical elements had a common origin in one or 
more simple elements, they have in some miraculous way 
been broken up into different elements. On the other 
hand, if they were all diffused in gaseous matter, they 
have been combined into chemical substances by sudden 
leaps. There have been breaks, no matter how the pres- 
ent chemical order is accounted for by scientists. 

(2) There is a break between the living and the non- 
living. It is necessary for evolutionists to make a sud- 
den leap from non-living matter to living matter. They 
seek to make this marvelous change an insignificant thing 
by assuming the first form of life to be microscopic in 
size. They leap with ease the boundary which divides the 
organic from the inorganic, and find in matter the prom- 
ise and potency of every form of life. The difference be- 
tween the organic and the inorganic is most decisively 
marked. There is a great gulf fixed between the living 
and the non-living. And this leap from inanimate mat- 
ter to animate matter is beyond the knowledge of science. 
A miracle must have occurred once, at least, when life 
was introduced upon the earth. As long as the contrast 
in nature between the organic and the inorganic — the 
living and the non-living — holds good, there can be no 
spanning the chasm between them without a miracle. 
There is an impassable gulf between the mineral and the 
plant that can not be crossed except by sudden leap. 

(3) There is a break between vegetable and animal 
life. The earth was first fitted to sustain plant life, which 
was necessary in order to maintain animal life. The 
science of geology reveals the fact that plant life was prior 



Facts Against Evolution 131 

to that of animal life. And in the course of the develop- 
ment when vegetable life ceased to be vegetable and be- 
came animal, there was a break — a sudden leap — in the 
process of evolution. And this is not, by any means, an 
insignificant leap. The fact may be pointed out that it 
is difficult to distinguish between some low forms of ani- 
mal and vegetable life, as an evidence that the transition 
between them would not be difficult; but there is a total 
difference in the nature of the two kinds of life, and it 
would be an impossibility to pass from the one to the 
other without a sudden leap. 

(4) There is a break in the development of the sexes. 
All the first animal forms are conceived as being uni- 
sexual. And, if the claims of evolutionists are well 
founded, when the unisexual animal became bisexual, 
there must have been a sudden leap in the development. 
For we can not conceive how reproduction could have 
been continued unless the change from the one to the 
other was sudden. The unisexual animal could not per- 
form the function of reproduction and pass gradually into 
the bisexual animal. There must have been a definite 
time when the unisexual became bisexual. And this was 
brought about by an "ineffable cleavage" — a sudden leap. 

(5) There is a break between life and consciousness. 
Between animal life in its lowest form and animal con- 
sciousness there is a break for which evolution fails to 
account. There was a time in the development of the 
animal when the insensate animal became sensate. The 
animal passed at some definite time from its lowest form 
without sensation into a being conscious of feeling and 
sensation. And the change from an insensate into a 
sensate animal was a sudden leap. 



132 The Origin of Man 

(6) There is a break between animal consciousness 
and the self-consciousness of man. The continuity 
between molecular processes and the phenomena of 
self-consciousness is a rock on which evolutionists 
have divided. There have been some that have 
accepted the theory of evolution up to this point, but 
have contended that there must have been a miracle per- 
formed here to account for human self-consciousness. In 
the origin of self-consciousness we have a problem that 
lies outside of the mechanical aspects of nature. Energy 
and self-consciousness are entirely unlike; there is no re- 
semblance between them. Evolutionists contend that their 
hypothesis will solve all the problems of life, yet they 
are forced to admit their ignorance of how man acquired 
his higher faculties. Huxley says : "I know nothing, 
and never hope to know anything of the steps by which 
the passage from molecular movement to states of con- 
sciousness is effected." It is inconceivable that purely 
materialistic causes could have produced such results as 
are found in the mental and moral constitution of man. 
The break between animal consciousness and the self-con- 
sciousness in man is absolute. There is a chasm here as 
wide as that between living and non-living matter. And 
this spanless chasm must have been crossed by a sudden 
leap. 

in. the; theory fails to account for useless organs. 

It is one of the fundamental principles of the theory 
of evolution that advance must be made by infinitesimal 
changes. Marked changes can not be maintained, if any 
such were to occur. Any complex organ that exists, that 



Facts Against Evolution 133 

could not have been formed by numerous small successive 
modifications, is fatal to the theory. There are certain 
organs that are useless until they are fully developed. 
The use of an organ might account for its modification, 
but not for its origin because it can not be used until it 
is formed. The origin of the bird's wing can not be ac- 
counted for by the theory of evolution. The wing before 
it was fully developed would be a useless appendix. It 
would require extra nutriment as well as strength to 
carry it about, and it would be utterly useless, for a half 
wing could not aid in flight. If evolution can not induce 
a single variation, much less a whole organ, and can only 
preserve the slight variations that are beneficial ; the wing 
of the bird must have originated at once and completely 
developed by some miraculous method, such as special 
creation requires. The undeveloped wing would not be 
beneficial, but it would be a hindrance. And it would be 
lost by the law of the survival of the fittest, for nothing 
can be retained, according to the theory, that is not 
profitable. 

The eye is another complicated organ that can not 
be satisfactorily accounted for by this theory. Evolu- 
tionists claim to be able to conceive how the eye could 
have been formed by the action of light upon a nerve, 
but just because they can conceive that which is favorable 
to their theory is no proof that the eye was formed in 
this way. We confess our inability to conceive how this 
complicated organ with its contrivance for adjusting the 
focus to different distances, for admitting different 
amounts of light, for correcting spherical and chromatic 
aberration, with all its rods, and cones, and lenses, could 



134 The Origin of Man 

have been formed from a layer of transparent tissue and 
a nerve sensitive to the light. The eye must have come 
into perfection at once, otherwise it could not be used for 
the purpose of seeing. How the eye could be in the least 
beneficial before it was fully developed, is beyond com- 
prehension. The eye is a masterpiece of mechanism. 
As a self-adjusting instrument it is superior to any in- 
vention of man, such as the microscope, the telescope, or 
the photographer's camera. The eye with its transparent 
layers filled with fluid, with its self-adjustment, and with 
its nerve sensitive to light, is the most delicate and per- 
fect instrument known to man. And it is impossible that 
this delicate and complicated piece of mechanism could 
have been developed by infinitesimal changes guided by 
blind chance. It bears upon every part of it the stamp 
of design, and the evidence that it originated at once as 
the product of a creative mind. 

The hypothesis of evolution is utterly insufficient to 
explain the incipient, infinitesimal beginnings of struc- 
tures which are of utility only when fully developed. The 
eye is an organ that could not have been developed by 
natural selection, or, for that matter, by any method of 
evolution. It is not any wonder therefore that Darwin 
said that the eye made the cold chills run over him, it 
was too much for his philosophy. Here, then, are two 
complicated organs, the wing of the bird and the eye, 
that could not have been evolved by slow degrees of 
change. The belief that they were developed by evolution 
is enough to stagger the most credulous. They must 
have been introduced at once and in their full perfection, 
which would require a miracle. These complex organs 



Facts Against Evolution 135 

manifestly were not developed gradually. They are in- 
consistent with the supposed law of evolution, and, hence, 
the theory utterly breaks down here. 

IV. THE FACT OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF TIME IS FATAI, 
TO THE THEORY. 

The theory of evolution requires an inconceivable 
lapse of time, oceans of time, unlimited time. Man, the 
final product of evolution, is represented as the outcome 
of incalculable antecedent time. Haeckel affirms that a 
hundred million years is not sufficient for the process of 
natural selection to accomplish its work. Evolutionists 
make time do everything. Time accomplishes the work 
of intelligence; time, in the theory, is the cause that 
takes the place of the first great cause. The time, how- 
ever, allowed by geologists for the formation of the 
earth and its subsequent history, granting the extreme 
limit of time, one hundred million of years, is far too 
short for the development of man according to the hy- 
pothesis of evolution. If the commencement of life was 
coeval with the formation of the f ossiferous rocks, it is 
entirely too limited for the species to have been developed 
into their present high state of perfection. For the in- 
significant amount of change that has taken place in any 
group of animals is far too small for the hypothesis that 
all living forms are the result of a process necessary to 
progressive development entirely confined within the 
limits of time represented by geological formations. A 
conservative estimate of the age of the world, based on 
recent investigations of scientists, does not exceed thirty 



136 The Origin of Man 

million years; a period of time entirely insufficient for 
evolution to produce the inorganic and the organic world. 

V. THE FACTS RELATED TO CERTAIN TYPES OP UEE ARE 
IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE THEORY OP EVOLUTION. 

(1) The fact of the "persistent types of life" is 
against the theory. 

The theory requires not only a continuous progress, 
but the destruction of the old forms of life as the new 
are produced. But, notwithstanding the absolute neces- 
sity of the destruction of the old forms, they have by no 
means all disappeared at the advent of the new. The 
facts relating to' various types of life clearly show that 
the law of evolution is not world-wide in its operations. 
Its advocates claim that it is as well established as the 
law of gravitation, but gravitation operates everywhere 
and under all circumstances. There are certain condi- 
tions under which evolution is inoperative. Some forms 
of plants and animals reached their highest development 
untold ages ago, and, without advancing in any material 
respect, continue to exist up to the present time. 

These are called the "persistent types of life." They 
are numerous and of great variety. Some of them orig- 
inated in the remotest geological ages, and some of them 
belong to less remote periods. Among these numerous 
types are lingula flags, crinoids, sponges, oysters, scor- 
pions, corals, star-fish, horseshoe-crabs, sea-urchins, gar- 
pike, sturgeons, and a species of shark. All these types 
of life have come down to our times through number- 
less ages almost without a single change. Some of them 
have not undergone a single perceptible change during 



Facts Against Evolution 137 

their entire career. The extreme permanency of these 
forms of life, which have continued to propagate them- 
selves through vast changes of environment and almost 
innumerable ages of time without material change, and 
their apparent fixity in their final forms, prove beyond a 
doubt that no law of universal evolution exists. It is 
only a begging of the question to claim that these forms 
have reached their highest attainments — that in the proc- 
ess of evolution they have reached their destination — 
and have ceased to advance. These species have survived 
in spite of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. 
Here the law of progress and continuity breaks down. 
Contrary to the often-repeated assertions of evolutionists, 
the development has not all been upward and onward. 
These forms have been stereotyped, and left unchanged 
through countless ages. Evolution is therefore not a uni- 
versal law. 

(2) The fact of the reversion of type is against the 
theory. 

There are retrograde movements in both plants and 
animals that are diametrically opposed to the teachings of 
evolution. Certain types of life under favorable condi- 
tions have a strong tendency to revert to the original 
type. After the most careful cultivation of a species by 
artificial selection for generations, the law of reversion 
of type asserts itself, and the original type is reproduced. 
It is necessary for the breeder continually to cull from 
his stock the animals that fall below the standard in color 
and form. The conditions under artificial selection are 
much more favorable than they ever could have been 
under natural selection. After long years of careful cul- 
tivation by artificial selection, a highly developed variety 



138 The Origin of Man 

of a species may be produced, but, in spite of all the most 
intelligent and experienced breeder can do to prevent re- 
version, there will appear stripes, colors, and defective 
forms that belong to the original type. Pigeons, for ex- 
ample, have been bred for centuries under careful selec- 
tion, yet they show a constant tendency to revert to the 
primitive rock pigeon. There occasionally appear in all 
the breeds black bars on the wings and tail feathers. And 
these markings are characteristic of the parent rock 
pigeons from which they were all developed. 

In the human family children are born that bear no 
resemblance to their parents, nor to their grandparents, 
but revert to some remote ancestor. A defect such as a 
hair lip that appears in one generation, though it miss 
a generation or two, is sure to reappear in some succeed- 
ing generation. 

All our domestic varieties, when allowed to run wild, 
gradually but invariably revert to the original stock. 
If evolution is true, after a well-marked variety is pro- 
duced, it should make constant improvement until the 
highest possible development is reached. And if the law 
of evolution is the supreme law of nature, when a variety 
has reached this high state of development, it should 
constantly reproduce itself instead of reverting to the 
original type. If after untold ages of development of 
the species, there is this constant tendency to reversion 
to the primitive type, there must have been still greater 
tendency to revert in the beginning than there is at the 
present when the species have become more stable. Recog- 
nizing the strength of this tendency to revert at the pres- 
ent stage of development, we are thoroughly convinced 
that at an earlier stage of the development, presupposed 



Facts Against Evolution 139 

by the hypothesis of evolution, that it would have pre- 
cluded the possibility of the development of the species 
under nature by the process of evolution. 

( 3 ) The fact of the unity of type is against the theory. 

Geological history furnishes no evidence that one 
species was ever changed into another species. In the 
earliest ages species are as sharply defined as in the high- 
est development of the present advanced age. The hy- 
pothesis of evolution has no foundation in fact, for no 
one has ever witnessed the evolution of a species. It is 
true that there can be crosses made between closely re- 
lated species, but a hybrid is invariably produced. There 
is a limit to the variability of species by selective breed- 
ing. Evolutionists have failed to produce out of the ex- 
isting order a single new species. Through numberless 
gradations the species are separated by impassable bar- 
riers. Beyond a certain limit they can not propagate 
their kind. We find each species transmitting to its off- 
spring the natural characteristics of its own species, and 
never the characteristics belonging to another species. 
And no such change can be brought about because the 
characteristics of the species become more marked as it 
is developed. The development of the cat is toward 
felinity, the development of the dog is toward caninity, 
and the development of the ape is toward simianitv. 

The species present a series of lines not converging 
as if they pointed to some common progenitor, but strictly 
parallel to each other, indicating an independent origin. 
Distinct species never differ from each other in single 
characteristics, but in many distinct parts. It they have 
been developed from one another, many parts have been 
modified at the same time, which is contrary to the re- 



140 The Origin of Man 

quirements of the theory. No example has ever been 
found where one species has been changed into another 
to the extent of assuming the characteristics of a new 
species. Species are unchanging units. The hypothesis 
of evolution must account for the unity of type, under 
which law no distinct species of animal ever produces any 
type but its own. Whatever species you consider in 
geological history, you find that it has either become ex- 
tinct, or it continues to propagate its same type of animal 
with only such slight variations as naturally result from 
change of environment. There never has been in the 
history of the world an animal of a distinct species evolved 
out of a fundamentally different species. This is a de- 
cree of nature that brooks no violation. Thus far and no 
farther shalt thou go. There is a barrier between species 
now that can not be crossed, and we have no knowledge 
that would justify the belief that it has even been crossed 
in geological time. We no more gather grapes from 
thorns and figs from thistles in the animal kingdom than 
we do in the vegetable. Granting that there has been 
modification and improvement in varieties, yet there has 
been no radical change from one distinct species into an- 
other. Before the truth of evolution can be established, 
it will be necessary to produce by selective breeding two 
distinct species from the same stock so different from each 
other that a cross between them will produce a hybrid, or 
they must produce a species of hybrids that are fertile. 
Evolutionists have allowed their imagination to run away 
with their better judgment, and have assumed that their 
theory was true because they could conceive how the 
process of developing one species from another might 
have taken place by gradual and infinitesimal variations. 



Facts Against Evolution 141 

If the question of the sufficiency of time is raised, we 
reply that history furnishes us with a reasonable length 
of time in which man has had to do with the breeding of 
animals, and there is no record of an animal being pro- 
duced under domestication which can be said to belong 
to a species different from its immediate known progen- 
itors. There is no change in the animals that were under 
domestication in Egypt between four and five thousand 
years ago. And the fact of the unity of type utterly over- 
throws the doctrine of evolution that the individual ani- 
mal changes by selection, and that these slight changes 
that are acquired in this way are transmitted to his off- 
spring until these infinitesimal changes evolve an en- 
tirely distinct animal species. The unity of type estab- 
lishes the fact that the required changes, according to the 
evolutionary hypothesis have never occurred, and shows 
still further that it is an impossibility for them ever to 
take place. The laws that govern these distinct kinds of 
types are in direct violation of the fundamental princi- 
ples of the hypothesis of evolution. These facts are ut- 
terly inconsistent with the theory, and, according to the 
admission of its own advocates, it falls to the ground. 

vi. the fact of degeneration is against the theory. 

There is no standstill in nature. As soon as the indi- 
vidual animal or the species of animals cease to advance 
they begin to retrograde. The domestic animals, when 
allowed to run wild, gradually loose their acquired char- 
acteristics, and invariably degenerate until they reach the 
aboriginal stock from which they were developed. While 
Darwin admits the fact of this degeneration to the orig- 



142 The Origin of Man 

inal stock, yet he seeks to evade its force by begging the 
question. He claims that we have no means of knowing 
what the aboriginal stock was from which the species 
that have degenerated were developed, hence, we can not 
be certain whether they have degenerated into the primi- 
tive stock or not. We know that the highly developed 
varieties that have been produced under domestication by 
artificial selection retrograde into the common stock with 
which the development was begun. The highly developed 
varieties of the tame pigeon, when placed under natural 
conditions, degenerate into the common rock pigeon. The 
highly cultivated flower, if wholly neglected, degenerates 
into the wild flower. We do not know, of course, what 
was back of these common types, except as we find their 
remains in the fossil rocks. But the law of the unity of 
type holds good of degeneration as well as of develop- 
ment, and no new species can be brought into existence 
out of another by the operations of the law of degenera- 
tion. There is therefore not a shadow of doubt but what 
a species that has been developed by artificial selection, 
when it degenerates goes back to the aboriginal stock. 
But this fact is fatal to evolution, for, if man was de- 
veloped from the ape, in his extreme degeneration he 
would retrograde until he had reached back to the ape. 
Man degenerates into a savage, but shows not the slight- 
est trace of the brute. 

Many so-called species that are regarded as having 
been developed from some common species, have been 
produced, not by development, but by retrogression from 
a higher organized variety into a lower variety of the same 
species. There is in the constitution of the animal species 
no innate tendency to evolution, but there is in every 



Facts Against Evolution 143 

species an innate tendency toward degeneration and ex- 
tinction. Some forms degenerate and live under new con- 
ditions, but they are the same except for their degenera- 
tion. There is abundant proof of the successive degenera- 
tion of structure in nature — a passing from a higher ani- 
mal into a lower form of the same animal. Animals that 
formerly had higher powers have lost them by degenera- 
tion. The whale and the seal finding food easier to secure 
and more abundant in the sea took to the water, and 
gradually lost their means of locomotion on land. Birds 
that once had the power of flight can no longer fly. But 
evolutionists have, without the least hesitancy, claimed 
that these degenerated forms were the result of the pro- 
cess of evolution. A bird that has lived in the air finds 
it easier to procure food in the water, and takes up that 
mode of life. It gradually loses its power of flight, and 
becomes adapted to its new mode of life. And evolution- 
ists adduce this as a proof of evolution, but it is a de- 
evolution. Species of animals that once lived above 
ground have burrowed under the earth, and their aerial 
organs have become completely changed to fit under- 
ground conditions, and this is called an evolution.* But 
instead of its being an evolution it is a degeneration, for 
these aerial organs will not again resume aerial functions. 
The argument for evolution, based on the distribution 
of the species to countries and climates adapted to their 
peculiar mode of life is not well founded. The fact that 
these species are adapted to their surroundings is an evi- 
dence of degeneration rather than a proof of evolution. 
They have adapted themselves to new and changed con- 



*Principles of Biology. — Spencer. 



144 The Origin of Man 

ditions by a dwarfing, or deterioration of the species. In 
this way species become modified under new conditions 
so as to adapt themselves to their environment. The 
whale adapts itself to the sea, the bird to the water, the 
mole to underground life, but this is always by a process 
of degeneration. But evolutionists, with their usual lack 
of discrimination, regard this as an evidence of evolution, 
in spite of the fact that these species once occupied a 
higher place in the scale of being than they do at present. 

The law of degeneration has been at work among the 
nations of the earth. Its effects are seen among men as 
well as the lower animals. We see about us individuals 
that once moved in the best society and enjoyed all the 
luxuries that wealth could furnish degenerate into com- 
mon tramps, who beg their bread from door to door. 
Nations that once stood at the head of civilization have 
become what are called decaying nations. Still other na- 
tions that once flourished as world powers, have become 
extinct, and we find in the ruins of their ancient cities evi- 
dence that there once dwelt, where these ruins stand, 
powerful peoples. If evolution is true, why is it that 
these nations that once enjoyed the highest degree of 
civilization have fallen into decay? Why are Babylon, 
Nineveh, Egypt, Greece, and Rome no more? If the 
theory of evolution is the universal law it is claimed to 
be, there is no reason that can be given for their down- 
fall. These great nations are imposing and solemn mon- 
uments of national degeneracy. It would seem that these 
nations were the fittest to survive, but they all fell into 
decay. They were overcome by cruder peoples, who took 
their place, and in their turn became great nations. 

Degeneration is not sporadic and local in its opera- 



Facts Against Evolution 145 

tions, but is what may be called a universal law. It is 
more far-reaching in its operations that evolution. Down- 
ward movements, decay, and death are everywhere mani- 
fest in nature. There is nothing that escapes the destruct- 
ive power of degeneration. All animate things when 
they have reached the perfection of their powers seem to 
pause a little while in the enjoyment of their mature 
powers, then begin to decay, and soon pass away. And 
many individual forms of life never even reach the ma- 
turity of their powers, but wither, waste away, and die. 
And what is true of the animate is true also of the in- 
animate. There are in the heavens above us dead and 
dying worlds without number, and in the ages to come 
there will be a time, no doubt, when all the worlds we 
know shall have come under the destructive, disintegrat- 
ing influence of the law of degeneration, and the universe 
shall be no more. There are a hundred facts in nature 
to prove a degeneration where there is a single fact to 
prove an evolution. If the theory of evolution is true, 
there should be universal development instead of uni- 
versal degeneration. And when anything has been de- 
veloped, it should retain its new form instead of losing 
it so soon. 

VII. THE FACT OF THE MISSING LINK IS AGAINST THE 
HYPOTHESIS. 

No satisfactory example of the almost infinitely al- 
leged connecting links, which must have occurred in a 
gradual development, can be found. Other species can 
be traced in fossil rocks, but there can not be found a 
single connecting link to bind the species together. Every 
10 



146 The Origin of Man 

fossil type necessary to establish a lower human origin 
is wanting. There is a break in the organic chain that 
can not be bridged over. Evolutionists have built up the 
arch of development into gigantic proportions in their 
efforts to span the chasm between the species, but the 
keystone is missing. If man was developed from the ape, 
his ancestor must have existed in semi-human form, but 
no such forerunner of man has even been discovered. 
When we take into consideration the fact that there are 
so many species of ape and so many races of men, it 
seems strange that no trace of the mediator between man 
and the apes has yet been discovered. In tracing the 
animal species back in geological time, we find that they 
invariably end without any link of connection with pre- 
vious species, and under circumstances that render any 
such connection extremely improbable. Evolutionists 
have searched with a diligence worthy a better cause for 
this supposed organism that makes us one with the under- 
world — for the missing link that binds us to the beast. 
But they have utterly failed to find the object of their 
search. The missing link has been reported found quite 
frequently. Evolutionists have cried Eureka! Eureka! 
and have announced their discovery to the world with 
flying banners. But, alas ! the missing link is still missing. 
The latest connecting link, perhaps, that has been dis- 
covered, was that which connects the horse with the 
smaller and lower animals. The discovery was made by 
Professor Marsh, of Yale University, and the text-books 
on geology record it in all seriousness. The history of 
the development of the horse, it is claimed, is just what 
could have been predicted from the knowledge of the 
principles of evolution. The earliest known horse is 



Facts Against Evolution 147 

found in the deposits of the Eocene period. It was an 
animal about the size of a fox, and had four toes and a 
rudiment in front, and three toes on its hind feet. This 
animal is called Eohippus. The next stage of the de- 
velopment is found in Orohippus, from the later Eocene, 
in which the rudimentary toe has disappeared. Orohippus 
developed into Mesohippus, the Miocene horse, which is 
larger and shows the fourth toe in rudimentary condi- 
tion. Mesohippus was evolved into Miohippus of the 
same period, an animal with three toes. The Miohippus 
developed into the Protohippus of the Pliocene, in which 
the side toes were shortening. The Protohippus devel- 
open later in this period into the Pliohippus, an animal 
with a hoof approaching more nearly that of the horse. 
And finally the Pliohippus evolved into the Equus, the 
full-fledged horse of the post-Tertiary period. 

Evolution is set forth as a progressive change, and it 
is claimed that it is invariably a development from the 
simple to the complex, from the ill-defined to the well- 
defined. But, if this is a true history of the development 
of the horse, it violates every principle of evolution. This 
is not the development of a lower animal into a higher, 
but is the development of a complex animal with four toes 
through a three-toed animal into a one-toed animal. And 
this is not true to theory. It is the development of a 
highly organized animal into a lowly organized animal. 
It is manifestly a survival of the unfit instead of the fit- 
test. In evolution there can be no sudden leaps. The 
continuity, according to the theory, Is unbroken. But 
here arc a scries of sudden leaps. There is a leap from a 
four-toed animal to a three-toed, and from a three-toed 
to a one-toed. This is not a progressive change by slow 



148 The Origin of Man 

degrees of advance, but is rather a series of miraculous 
changes. They begin with an animal the size of a fox, 
when, to be consistent, they should begin with an animal 
no larger, surely, than a new-born mouse. And, to make 
out a case, it should be shown that this animal was grad- 
ually evolved by infinitesimal changes through thousands 
of years of development up to the horse. The evolu- 
tionists it seems, in their anxiety to make out a case, 
have forged a chain of derivation by putting together 
arbitrarily such links as seemed to help out the deriva- 
tion. But these links are taken from the deposits of dif- 
ferent periods, and are widely separated in time and place. 
And these links are marshaled as the predecessors of 
the American horse, but unfortunately for the theory of 
evolution, as a result of this long series of developments, 
the horse native to this country became extinct. And 
the horses we have were imported from Europe, where 
evolutionists have developed the horse much in the same 
way they have in this country, but by a different series and 
from a different animal. The horse has had almost too 
many ancestors for the best interests of the theory in 
whose behalf he has been employed. 

We are informed that the reason the missing link has 
not been discovered is because of the extreme imperfec- 
tion of the geological records. All the evidence that has 
been discovered is against evolution, but we are told 
that we must accept the hypothesis as an established fact, 
for, if the records were more perfect, it would be shown 
to be true. When the extreme length of time — a hundred 
million years — that is assumed by evolutionists in order 
to work out their theory, is taken into consideration, it 
will be seen that there are an infinite number of links 



Facts Against Evolution 149 

missing from the chain of derivation. It is contended 
that these links did once exist, because the analogies war- 
rant the assumption that they did exist. They reason 
from the known to the unknown. They supply by gen- 
eral reasoning connecting links of the existence of which 
they have no proof. And it is even asserted that to one 
who thoroughly believes in the theory from general rea- 
soning, the absence of these links does not amount to any- 
thing. But whenever a theory requires this kind of rea- 
soning, in order to establish important links in the chain 
of proof, it completely discredits the theory. This method 
of accounting for the origin of man, by tracing his or- 
ganism through a long series of animal forms to the low- 
est and simplest forms of animal life, necessarily sup- 
poses an unbroken connection of lives with lives back 
through the whole series. And this connection must be 
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the argu- 
ment utterly fails. It is said that analogies show that 
transitional forms must have existed, and from the pos- 
sibility of their existence, and from the assumption that 
they did exist, it is argued that the higher forms of life 
were evolved out of the lower by a gradual succession. 
The main hypothesis is not drawn from a completed chain 
of established facts, but is helped out by inferring from 
established facts other facts that have no actual existence. 
The theory of evolution is a deduction from a great num- 
ber of complex facts, but there is no proof that they make 
a complete chain of evidence. Link after link in the chain 
of evidence is wanting, and the breaks have to be filled 
up with imaginary transitional forms. The breaks in 
the organic chain of man's development are admitted to 
be of frequent occurrence in all parts oi the series. No 



150 The Origin of Man 

remains whatever of transitional forms have been found 
in fossil rocks. Abundant examples of other fossil ani- 
mals can be found, and it is remarkably strange, if any 
of these supposed intermediate forms ever existed, that no 
trace of them has been discovered.* 

The fundamental error that underlies all the reason- 
ing of the evolutionists is that of assuming from meta- 
physical abstractions things to be true — to have had an 
existence — which, though deductively true, are in reality 
concretely false. The theory is not substantiated by the 
facts, but facts are assumed to meet the requirements of 
the theory. The method of argument is to assert the prob- 
ability of a fact, then without proof, place that assumed 
fact in a chain of evidence from which the truth of the 
theory is to be inferred. In this way the preconceived 
theory has influenced to a great extent the array of proof 
by which it is sought to be established. These assump- 
tions mark the arguments of the evolutionists from the 
beginning to the end of the discussion. Sweeping deduc- 
tions are made from a limited number of facts, and, more- 
over, many of these so-called facts are the creatures of 
an overwrought imagination. The lack of positive proof 
from the absence of needed facts in the chain of evidence 
is frankly acknowledged, and the force of the admission 
is evaded by the lame claim that they must have existed, 
and that they will be found some time when a complete 
geological record is secured. They are not in the least 
deterred from drawing conclusions from a chain of rea- 
soning from which necessary intermediate links are want- 
ing. They assume the existence of these links, place them 



^Creation or Evolution. — Curtis. 



Facts Against Evolution 151 

in a chain of evidence, and arrive at the same conclusions 
as if they did actually exist. The difficulty with this kind 
of reasoning is that it borrows from the main hypothesis 
which is to be established the means of proving the facts 
from which the hypothesis is to be drawn as an infer- 
ence. Evolutionists, therefore, not only assume the truth 
of their premises, but they also assume the truth of the 
proof by which they seek to establish these premises, 
which is entirely unwarranted. The absence of these 
links in the chain of proof makes evolution weakest where 
it should be the strongest. 

If theologians had attempted to establish the Chris- 
tian religion by the same method of reasoning that evo- 
lutionists have employed, in order to substantiate their 
theory, they would have been held up to the world as a 
set of imbeciles. Suppose, for example, that they had 
undertaken to prove the resurrection of Christ, the most 
vital doctrine of Christianity, by a similar method of 
argument. They set forth the facts in the life of Christ, 
his miraculous birth, his spotless character, his exalted 
teaching, his power to raise the dead, and his promise 
that he himself would rise from the dead on the third day. 
But suppose there was missing from the chain of evidence 
the fact that he did actually rise from the dead. And 
the account that is given in the four gospels of the events 
that transpired on the resurrection morning was missing. 
All these facts were passed over in silence by his disci- 
ples. And, in spite of this omission, we were told that 
he did rise from the dead, because he had power to raise 
the dead, and because he had promised to raise himself 
from the dead. And it is claimed that his resurrection 
must be accepted as an actual fact, for his character was 



1 52 The Origin of Man 

such that he would not promise to do anything unless he 
could fulfill it. And in this way the conclusion is reached 
that Christ rose from the dead on the third day. The 
claim is set up that the resurrection is an established fact, 
and that, if we had a complete record of the events that 
took place at the tomb that Easter morning, it could be 
proven that he did actually come back to life. It is ad- 
mitted that he was never seen in the flesh after his death 
— that an important link in the chain of proof is wanting 
— but the analogies warrant the conclusion, therefore his 
resurrection is established. The reasoning is from the 
known facts to the unknown. And the breaks in the chain 
of proof are bridged over by borrowing from the main 
hypothesis of the resurrection. It is needless to say that 
theologians would have been laughed to scorn had they 
attempted to substantiate the doctrines of the Christian 
religion by any such a line of argument from which one 
important link was missing. But men who pose as 
scientists have in all seriousness attempted to establish the 
hypothesis of evolution by just such a defective chain of 
argument. And in the case of evolution not only one im- 
portant link is missing, but there is not a single link of 
the untold millions that are required to connect the dif- 
ferent species with each other in their supposed develop- 
ment from the lowest forms up to man the crowning 
glory of the process. 

Does this array of facts which have been presented, 
that are diametrically opposed to evolution, disprove the 
theory? If we accept the admissions of the ablest advo- 
cates of evolution, the hypothesis utterly breaks down; 
for there is not only one important fact that is contrary 
to the theory, but there are many and varied facts for 



Facts Against Evolution 153 

which it can give no satisfactory explanation. We call 
the reader's attention to the fact again that we have not 
undertaken the task of disproving the theory, and do not 
therefore claim to have disproved it. But if these facts 
that are inconsistent with the theory do not disprove it, 
they show that it is a highly improbable hypothesis. And 
it must be admitted by every candid reader that the facts 
in hand are not yet sufficient to warrant an overweening 
confidence in the hypothesis of evolution. 



part XL 



REVOLUTION 

155 



"Every form, whether of society, or government, or of the 
Church, ought to change, by yielding quietly to the pressure of the 
growing spirit; otherwise, the pressure increasing, the petrified shell 
is violently burst, and cast off by revolution/' — Le Conte. 

"It is easy to destroy ; it is difficult to reconstruct. Nor is there 
any human force which can arrest a national conflagration when 
once it is kindled : only on its ashes can a new structure arise, and 
this only after long and laborious efforts and humiliating disap- 
pointments." — Lord. 

"Religion is so essential to man that he can not escape from it. 
It besets him, penetrates, holds him even against his will. The 
proof of its necessity is the spontaneity of its existence. It comes 
into being without any man willing it, or any man making it; and 
as it began so it continues. . . . Men bear its institutions while 
they believe its truth; and no social or political revolution is pos- 
sible anywhere save by those who have revolted from the beliefs 
on which the society or the State has been constructed." — Fairbaim. 

"Every man is a cause, a country, and an age; requires infinite 
spaces and numbers and time to accomplish his thought; — and pos- 
terity seem to follow his steps as a procession. A man Caesar is 
born, and for ages after we have a Roman Empire. Christ is born, 
and millions of minds so grow and cleave to His genius, that He is 
confounded with virtue and the possible of man. An institution is 
the lengthened shadow of one man ; as the Reformation, of Luther ; 
Quakerism, of Fox; Methodism, of Wesley; Abolition, of Clarkson. 
Scipio, Milton called 'the height of Rome;' and all history resolves 
itself very easily into the biography of a few stout and earnest per- 
sons." — Bmerson. 



156 



REVOLUTION 

"jV/T AN dwells upon the earth, and he must have been 
brought into existence by some power that will 
account for him with all his endowments. If he was 
not evolved from the lower animals by the law of evo- 
lution, how came the human race upon the earth? We 
answer this question by affirming that man originated 
by a law that operates in a manner just the reverse of 
the process of evolution. We have called this the Law of 
Revolution. And by revolution we mean such a sudden, 
radical change, or appearance in full perfection of powers, 
as would have taken place in the production of the uni- 
verse, the species, and man, if they had originated by 
the special creative acts of the immanent God. Evolution 
is characterized by the slowness of the process of change 
which requires endless years of time to bring nature into 
the present high state of perfection. But revolution is 
characterized by its velocity and rapidity of change, and 
brings at once into a high state of perfection that which it 
produces. 

The law of revolution, as it has operated in nature, is 
illustrated by the political changes that have taken place 
in human governments and by the religious reformations 
that have occurred in the Christian Church. The pres- 
ent high state of civilization among the nations of the 
earth is the result of past revolutions. Crises have come 
in the life of every nation, when some great political 

i57 



158 The Origin of Man 

change has suddenly taken place; and, when we look be- 
neath the surface, we learn that the new order has in- 
variably been brought about by the uprising of the people 
after they have been long oppressed by tyrannical rulers. 
The people, after enduring the oppression by these cor- 
rupt rulers for long weary years, have at length arisen in 
their majesty, and the old oppressive systems of govern- 
ment have been compelled to give place to larger thought 
and to greater freedom. The universal testimony of his- 
tory is that every great advance in civilization and up- 
ward march of the race had its beginnings in a revolu- 
tion, and was not brought about by the gradual processes 
of evolution. 

It has been confidently asserted that the progress of 
society has always been by a long series of consecutive 
evolutions. And it is also claimed to be a recognized 
truth, that "constitutions are not made, but grow." But 
that social institutions and political constitutions are not 
made, but grow, is a dogmatic statement; and is by no 
means true, no matter how plausible it may sound. We 
do not deny that there is a development in society and a 
growth in constitutions, yet we contend that they always 
have their origin in revolution. We desire to impress 
upon the mind of the reader that it is the origin of things 
that we are discussing, and not their after-development. 
Political constitutions have originated, and then are 
shaped and developed as the nations progress, but they 
have their origin in revolutions. Revolution blasts out 
the large masses of rock for the purpose of building con- 
stitutions, and evolution chisels them into shape and lays 
them in place in the walls of state. But revolutions, by 
which constitutions originate, become a deflecting in- 



Revolution 159 

fluence, whose operations widen with the course of time, 
and, for this reason, changes that have had their origin in 
revolution, have often been attributed to evolution. 

If the theory of evolution were true, the changes in 
the form of government should always take place by grad- 
ually yielding to the growing spirit of progress, but in 
the actual history of the political progress of the nations 
the pressure of misrule and tyranny has increased until 
the petrified shell of oppression and despotism has at 
length been violently burst and cast off by revolution. 
And such is the strength of conservatism that when a 
form of government is once established, it seems that it 
is impossible for it to be gradually changed, or greatly 
modified, except by a choice that amounts to a revolution. 
And even after a new form of government has been es- 
tablished, the old conservative element in the nation at 
the first favorable opportunity arises and attempts to 
crush out the new ideas that have gained the ascendency 
through the revolution and undertakes to re-establish 
the old order of things. 

It is often difficult to get at the truth of history on ac- 
count of the obscuring influence of the hypothesis of evo- 
lution. Men view the events of history with eyes that 
are biased by the preconceived hypothesis of evolution, 
and for this reason have failed to discover the truth be- 
cause of the obscuring influence of these preconceived no- 
tions. It is necessary to know the view point of a his- 
torian in order that you may be able to estimate the value 
of his statements. Certain historical works appear to 
have been written for the sole purpose of so manipulating 
the events of history that the truth of the theory oi evolu- 
tion might be established. The attempt has been made 



160 The Origin of Man 

to reduce history to a national science, which is what it is 
as a result of unconscious evolution. It is necessary in 
the study of history to lay aside, as far as possible, our 
preconceived notions and prejudices, and seek to learn the 
lesson that history has to teach, whatever it may be. 
And, if this is done, it will be found that the transforma- 
tions in society and the changes in political constitutions 
in the world's advancement do not conform to the theory 
of evolution, but strikingly illustrate the hypothesis of 
special creation. 

What has been said of political changes also holds 
good in religious progress. There have been no changes 
in the religious creeds of the world by a gradual upward 
movement. Men do not accept a new creed until they are 
thoroughly convinced that the old creed they have held 
is untrue. And, when the change is made from the one 
to the other, it has always been brought about by some 
sudden radical movement. Every great religious move- 
ment, every reformation in the doctrines and government 
of the Church, every enlargement of the spiritual life in 
its membership has begun suddenly, and, as a rule, when 
least expected. Changes have taken place in both the 
church and the state when it seemed that they were on the 
verge of utter ruin. The transformations have been pre- 
ceded by long years of downward progress, that is, by de- 
generation. When the limit of endurance has been reached 
by a long suffering people, the change in the form of gov- 
ernment, the improved social conditions, and the new type 
of religious creed, have been introduced. The introduction 
of the new order in government, in society, and in the 
church has been by revolution; but it has usually been 
preceded by a deterioration in these institutions. And 



Revolution 161 

this downward movement has been assumed to be an evo- 
lution, but it has been a de-evolution instead. 

It is claimed that the theory of special creation is ab- 
solutely unsupported by evidence, but that the hypothesis 
of evolution has a number of facts in its support of the 
kind needed to establish its truth. But we hold that there 
is abundant evidence of the kind needed to establish the 
theory of special creation. As the political governments 
and the Christian Church have reached their present high 
state of development by passing through certain revolu- 
tions and reformations, so, in like manner, the present 
state of development in the earth, the species, and man 
has been brought about by geological catastrophes and 
sudden radical changes which are such as we would nat- 
urally expect were they the result of divine intervention. 
These cataclysmic transformations in the inorganic world 
and the sudden miraculous changes in the organic world 
are in perfect harmony with the theory of special creation, 
but they are inexplicable on the hypothesis of evolution. 
By placing evolution and revolution in juxtaposition 
we hope to be able to show that man originated by special 
creation, and not by a process of evolution. 

There are three distinct kinds of revolutions. The 
political revolution, of which the revolution in which the 
United States gained her independence, is an example; 
the social revolution, which has more especially to do with 
the lives of the people, for example, the French Revo- 
lution; and the religious reformation, example, the Prot- 
estant Reformation under Martin Luther. But none of 
these distinct revolutions can be limited in its results to 
its distinctive field of operations. The political revolu- 
tion produces changes in the social conditions of the peo- 
ii 



162 The Origin of Man 

pie; the social revolution brings about political changes; 
and the religious reformation often results in both polit- 
ical and social changes. But these distinctive revolutions 
that have taken place in the history of nations, with all 
their disastrous results and their far-reaching benefits, 
have all occurred suddenly. In order that the reader may 
have a clear understanding of what is meant by the term 
revolution as it is employed here to illustrate the theory 
of special creation, we shall give a brief review of some 
of the more important revolutions that history records. 
We shall undertake to show what led to these revolutions, 
how they came, and something of the changes that were 
introduced by them in the state, in society, and in the 
church. 

I. 

It was by a political revolution that the United States 
of America became an independent nation. The mother 
country, in her government of the colonies, sought, by 
repeated abuses and usurpations, to establish over them 
an absolute despotism. A king was on the throne that, 
to say the least, was none too highly endowed with either 
wisdom or intelligence. George III. was one of the most 
narrow-minded, stupid, and obstinate rulers that ever sat 
on the English throne. He was scarcely capable of form- 
ing an intelligent opinion in regard to the government of 
the colonies, but when such an opinion was presented to 
him ready made by his counselors, he was incapable of 
relinquishing it, however disastrous it might be to the 
government, or to the welfare of the governed. He be- 
lieved in an absolute jurisdiction over the colonies as an 



Revolution 163 

integral part of the empire, and was determined to en- 
force this jurisdiction. The king was not able to com- 
prehend the free and independent spirit of the men who 
had braved the dangers of the new world and had estab- 
lished the colonies on our shores, hence, these burdens 
and hardships that were laid upon the shoulders of our 
forefathers. 

The parent government undertook to enforce the ab- 
stract rights of a supreme governing power to tax the 
colonies without their consent, and without representa- 
tion. The colonists were treated as if they had no rights 
that the parent government were bound to respect. Taxes 
were imposed, legislatures were suspended, charters were 
taken away, laws were abolished, standing armies were 
quartered among the people in times of peace, citizens of 
the colonies were transported across the seas for trial on 
pretended offenses, and petitions for redress were an- 
swered by added injuries and greater oppression. There 
was a growing dissatisfaction and unrest among the 
colonists with the parent government, which was 
prophetic of a coming change in the relations between 
the colonies and the English nation. When our fore- 
fathers recognized the fact that this long line of abuses 
and usurpations was being pursued for the sole purpose 
of establishing over them an absolute tyranny, they re- 
volted against Great Britain. But they did not revolt 
until every peaceful measure had been exhausted to secure 
their rights. 

Trior to this time the feeling for the parent govern- 
ment had been the best. The colonies submitted willingly 
to the government of the crown. The laws were held in 
high esteem, and the people manifested the highest alloc- 



164 The Origin of Man 

tion for the home government. But when they became 
thoroughly convinced that their only hope was in revolu- 
tion they threw off the yoke of oppression. Loyalty and 
affection for Great Britain were changed to bitter enmity 
by a systematic course of arrogant government. And 
this noble band of patriots, after years of tireless heroic 
conflict, during which they suffered all manner of priva- 
tions and underwent the severest hardships, finally came 
off victorious in this seemingly unequal struggle. And 
out of this revolution there came to the American people 
the best system of government that exists upon the earth 
at the present day. 

During the revolution the Continental Congress, by 
the mere force of circumstances, assumed the functions 
of a general government. The necessity of mutual help 
in the war compelled the united action of the colonies. 
It was clearly seen at the close of the war that if inde- 
pendence was to be maintained, there must be a perma- 
nent union and an authoritative government. And it be- 
came evident that the system of confederation of states 
would not meet the demands of a stable government. The 
wisest and ablest statesmen were called together in con- 
vention to frame a constitution that would meet the de- 
mands of a stable government. In this way the colonies 
were converted from a loose confederation into a com- 
pact nation, not from the provision and deliberate build- 
ing of statesmanship, but simply from the sheer compul- 
sion of unforeseen events. It was necessary that these 
states, when they were united, have a constitution, and 
the commission that was appointed for this purpose 
framed the instrument of government which was after- 



Revolution 165 

wards ratified by the separate states. Therefore, the Con- 
stitution of the United States did not grow, but was made. 
And this made constitution is the greatest achievement 
of the intellect of man, unaided by supernatural power. 
No greater tribute could be paid to the statesmanship of 
its framers, than the fact that Gladstone acknowledged 
the constitution to be "the greatest work struck off at any 
one time by the mind and purpose of man, except perhaps 
the great nation that has been governed by its provisions." 
And not only was the constitution made, but all the 
fifteen amendments that have since been added to it have 
been made. These amendments did not come about by 
slow degrees of change through long periods of time. 
But every one of them has been the resultant of the exi- 
gencies of the times. The first ten amendments were 
added to the constitution immediately on its adoption, 
and were in the nature of a bill of rights which many of 
the states demanded when they agreed to accept the in- 
strument of government. In reality, they may be re- 
garded as practically forming a part of the original in- 
strument. The same is likewise true of the eleventh 
amendment, which was added by the men who made the 
constitution, in order to perfect the instrument. And 
the twelfth amendment was made necessary by the dis- 
covery of a grave defect in the electoral system. The 
situation was a perilous one, and the will of the people in 
the choice of the President could have been easily 
thwarted by a few unscrupulous politicians. This grave 
danger had been unforeseen by the framers o\ the consti- 
tution. The plan that was formed to defeat the will o\ 
the people on a mere technicality was defeated by Alex- 



166 The Origin of Man 

ander Hamilton and other Federalist statesmen. And to 
make a recurrence of this danger impossible, the twelfth 
amendment was adopted. 

More than a half century passed before the consti- 
tution was again amended, and the next three amend- 
ments were added in rapid succession. These amend- 
ments were added as the direct result of the civil war. 
This great conflict grew largely out of the slavery ques- 
tion. Slavery had been a bone of contention with the 
framers of the constitution, and the institution was recog- 
nized by compromise. It seemed the wisest thing to do 
to recognize it, rather than to have no constitution. The 
iniquitous practice had at length reached a place where 
it could no longer be endured. The very life of the na- 
tion depended on its abolition. After the close of the 
war these three amendments were adopted. They abol- 
ished slavery, gave to every man the right of franchise 
without regard to his race, color, or previous condition 
of servitude, and embodied some other conditions that 
were made necessary by the civil war. Therefore, we see 
that after the early amendments, made necessary in order 
to perfect the constitution, it has practically only been 
amended a single time, and that was by the three great 
amendments which* were added as the result of the war of 
the rebellion. It is not impossible, of course, for the con- 
stitution to be amended except by a revolution. It might 
be changed by a more gradual process, but it originated, 
and all the amendments that have been made to it thus 
far have been by revolution. If it is a rule that constitu- 
tions are not made, but grow, the constitution of this 
government is an exception. 



Revolution 167 



II. 



The growth of liberty in the English nation can be 
traced, to a great extent, in the royal charters. And al- 
most invariably these charters were concessions of the 
rulers to end a protracted controversy with the nobles and 
people. It was a revolution that gave England her Magna 
Charta, the earliest monument of English liberty. King 
John, who occupied the throne at the time, was the most 
ignoble and profligate of all the English rulers. His 
usurpations, together with his profligate life and tyran- 
nical disposition, completely alienated the affections of 
the people. He trampled under foot the rights of the 
people and openly violated the laws of the land. There 
was a wide-spread unrest and dissatisfaction throughout 
the land, and the people longed to be free. The exactions 
of the king at length aroused the whole nation, and the 
nobles, the clergy, and the common people, all united in 
the contest for their rights. Both parties made prepara- 
tion for war, but the king had so incensed the feelings 
of the people that he had but few supporters. And when 
he found himself deserted by all his subjects except a few 
knights, with the whole nation confronting him in arms, 
he yielded to the inevitable and signed the Great Char- 
ter, granting larger liberty and greater freedom to the 
English people. 

This charter is the chief distinguishing mark between 
a free country and a despotism. It defined the rights of 
the nobility, the clergy, and the common people, and 
placed certain restrictions on the reigning- monarch. The 



168 The Origin of Man 

granting of this charter was a revolutionary change from 
absolutism to the recognition of the rights of the people. 
There had been some grants forced from former kings by 
the uprising of the people, but, of all the grants that had 
been previously made by various kings, there was noth- 
ing to compare in its importance to this charter wrung 
from King John at Runnymede. There has scarcely been 
a claim for popular rights that has since been made which 
did not in some way depend on this charter. 

This charter was violated many times by almost every 
sovereign down to the time of the Revolution, but none 
of them denied its validity nor contested the binding force 
of its provisions. The Great Charter was repeatedly an- 
nulled, confirmed, annulled, and reconfirmed, often even 
by the same ruler. The nobles attempted to form guar- 
antees against the infraction of the charter by the ap- 
pointment of a council to see that its provisions were kept. 
But it was not difficult for an able and popular ruler to 
gather the reins of government into his own hands and 
overthrow the will of the people. The reigning sover- 
eigns that held firmly to the doctrine of the divine right 
of kings and to the passive obedience of the people, 
ignored the provisions of the charter whenever possible. 
The Parliament finally gained greater powers, and then 
the rights of the people were more carefully guarded. 
But this body was looked upon by tyrannical rulers as 
having no rights except to carry out the will and policy 
of the sovereign. When a ruler of this type had secured 
the reins of government well in his own hands, he avoided 
the restraining influence of Parliament by refusing to 
call it together. But the Parliament at length overcame 
this difficulty and strengthened its power by passing a 



Revolution 169 

law that if the sovereign did not call it together that its 
members were to- assemble themselves after three years.* 

The English people have always been very conserva- 
tive, and while they threw off the yoke of despotism when 
they compelled King John to grant them the Great Char- 
ter, yet they retained the' same form of government. The 
king still reigned, though with restricted powers, but it 
was not difficult for a willful and able ruler to annul the 
charter. The danger of making the change from despot- 
ism to a limited monarchy in this conservative way was 
the return, through old forms, to the same old evils. And 
this is what actually occurred, again and again, in the 
history of the English people. The people sometimes en- 
joyed a large degree of liberty, and again some able and 
willful monarch usurped the powers of government and 
reigned as an absolute despot. There was a long strug- 
gle between the successive rulers and the people. These 
conflicts finally resulted in the complete establishment of 
a representative form of government that secured the per- 
sonal liberty of the people. But it was only after a long- 
series of epochs that the new and popular spirit was 
poured into these old forms of government. The Revo- 
lution finally revived and firmly established the doctrine 
that the supreme power of the nation resided in the Par- 
liament, and centralized its authority in the House of 
Commons. 

The liberties and privileges of the English people wore 
won after long centuries of conflict. The evolutionists 
might, by utterly ignoring the frequent loss o\ the liber- 
ties of the people under tyrannical rulers and their resto- 



*European Constitutional 1 [istory. — Case. 



170 The Origin of Man 

ration after the revolt of the people/ contend that the Eng- 
lish constitution was not made, but grew. The English 
constitution, however, was made, not at once, as that of 
our own country, but by a large number of revolutions of 
greater or of less importance. It did not grow by slow 
degrees of change through these centuries of conflict. It 
was not the result of progressive change with unbroken 
continuity. The changes in the constitution, as a rule, 
were made by the sword's point amidst the rattle of mus- 
ketry and the deafening roar of cannon, but sometimes 
the changes were brought about by a "bloodless" revo- 
lution. 

III. 

The French Revolution furnishes a striking illustra- 
tion of the suddenness with which political and social 
changes take place. In France the feudal system had 
reached its most perfect development, and many of its 
institutions and privileges continued even after the reign- 
ing sovereign had gained absolute power. Feudalism 
was of slow growth, but it gradually absorbed the gov- 
ernment and all the national institutions. It had its rise, 
no doubt, from the people's placing themselves under the 
protection of the barons in times of danger from in- 
vasion. These lords grew stronger and the people became 
dependent upon them, until the rights of the people were 
finally taken from them. This system was at last com- 
pletely and systematically established. For almost three 
centuries the power of the feudal lords was supreme, and 
the king was nothing more than a figure-head. Feudalism 
had succeeded in destroying the liberties of the people, 



Revolution 171 

and had reduced them to serfs that were bought and sold 
with the land. It is not strange that the people should 
become weary of this oppression, and should long for the 
restoration of some of their lost rights. About this time 
there arose a conflict between the sovereign and the feudal 
lords for supremacy. The efforts of the king were di- 
rected towards bringing the nation under his own con- 
trol. He was striving to regain some of the lost power 
of the throne and to become the controlling power in the 
state. Royalty now used the people against the aristoc- 
racy in order to further its own ends in securing control 
of the government. In making their choice between the 
contending powers, the people preferred to place them- 
selves under the rule of the sovereign, rather than remain 
longer the slaves of the feudal lords. In identifying 
themselves with the king they hoped to regain some of 
their lost liberties. Feudalism was a present evil which 
they sought to escape, while despotism was only a distant 
possibility. And the people, in order to escape the present 
oppression of feudalism, accepted the more distant op- 
pression of royalty.* 

In the contest for supremacy between the feudal lords 
and royalty the crown at length won, and the feudal aris- 
tocracy was compelled to recognize the supremacy of the 
king. This change came about very gradually. As the 
power was centralized in the ruling sovereign, the power 
of feudalism gradually ceased, and the growth of royal 
power constantly increased. Feudalism was slowly un- 
dermined by the growing power of royalty and became a 
dying institution. But this change was not brought about 



♦European Constitutional 1 Eistory. — Case 



172 The Origin of Man 

through the agency of natural forces working to this end. 
When feudalism was finally merged into royalty, Louis 
XIIL, one of the weakest and most incompetent rulers 
sat upon the throne, and the change was brought about 
by the efforts of Richelieu. This unscrupulous, but prince 
of statesmen, wormed his way into the confidence of the 
king, and became the master of the realm. And by his 
genius and loyalty to the throne, the power was grad- 
ually taken from the feudal lords and centralized in the 
ruling monarch. Richelieu made this his life work, he 
extricated France from the perils of feudalism, and made 
possible the absolutism of Louis XIV. And feudalism 
with all its oppression was finally merged into absolut- 
ism. Louis XIV. took the reigns of government into his 
own hands, and the royal power became absolute. The 
legislature was abolished, the courts were silenced, and 
hundreds of the best citizens were banished from the land. 
Sovereign authority was vested in the person of the king. 
He was the most absolute monarch that ever ruled in 
France. He was the state, and his will was the law of 
the land. His love of display prompted a most prodigal 
extravagance, and his sensuality inspired the greatest ex- 
cesses. He gathered around him the grandest and most 
extravagant court that the world had ever seen. He ex- 
hausted the resources of the country in building magnifi- 
cent palaces, in sensual pleasures, and in carrying on 
costly wars. At his death the country was bankrupt, and 
the people were reduced to untold miseries. 

Louis XV. was the heir of centuries of misrule and 
oppression. He inherited all the evils that resulted from 
the wars, wasteful extravagance, and sensual indulgence 
of his immediate predecessor. The treasury was empty 



Revolution 173 

and there was a vast public debt. The depleted condi- 
tion of the finances, however, did not restrain the king 
and the court in their expenditures. They fared sumptu- 
ously, dressed extravagantly, and lived for pleasure; but 
their pleasures were purchased by adding greatly to the 
burdens and sorrows of the people. The nobility were 
pleasure seekers, superficial, skeptical, and vile, and the 
king lacked the will power to carry out the plans that 
he knew were for his own best interests. He persisted in 
adhering to immoderate pretensions while practicing cor- 
ruptions, and permitting the gravest abuses. 

The power was centralized in the crown, and the 
people were ground into a fury of madness by the oppres- 
sion of the sovereign. The fatal mistake of the ruling 
classes was a blind persistence in their efforts to retain 
absolute power over the people and to live in luxury at 
their expense after they had ceased to render any ade- 
quate return for these privileges. Instead of ministering 
to the weak and helpless people they preyed mercilessly 
upon them. The nobles of France were the most worth- 
less, arrogant, and extravagant of all the nobility of 
Europe. They systematically extorted taxes from the 
people to minister to their own pleasure. They were ex- 
empt from taxation themselves, and refused to be taxed 
to relieve the burdens of the people. The court, the no- 
bility, and a few thousand aristocrats spent their lives in 
luxurious ease, while the millions dragged out a wretched 
existence made up of toil and suffering.* 

The ruling classes would not make any sacrifices, 
whatever, in the time of the nation's need. The nobles. 



♦French Revolution. — Carlyle. 



174 The Origin of Man 

the aristocrats, and the clergy held tenaciously to their 
privileges, and the court would curtail none of its un- 
necessary expenses. The extravagance and prodigality 
of the court increased and multiplied the burdens that 
were already crushing the people to the earth. The situa- 
tion of the absolute monarchy finally reached a crisis. 
There was, on the one hand, a corrupt court, falling short 
of the means to gratify its vicious appetites, while, on 
the other hand, there was a hard toiling people, pinched 
with hunger and driven almost to despair. The king and 
nobility found themselves in possession of a bankrupt 
treasury, facing a people distracted with poverty and dis- 
heartened by hardships. There abounded everywhere 
injustice, oppression, poverty, and misery, and more and 
more these conditions prevailed throughout the land. 
The cup of misery had been accumulating for centuries, 
and it was now full to the brim. 

These times called for a ruler with marked ability and 
indomitable courage, but Louis XVI. , who now occupied 
the throne, possessed none of the qualifications necessary 
to fit him to cope with these critical conditions that con- 
fronted the nation. He seemed to be incapable of com- 
prehending the critical situation that confronted him, and 
he was without the decision of character to cope with it, 
had he been able to comprehend its real drift. He was 
not only incompetent himself, but he was surrounded by 
incompetent ministers. 

The spirit of revolution was fed by the religious in- 
tolerance and hypocrisy of the priests. Faith was dead 
and unbelief was triumphant. The priests as well as the 
nobles had survived their usefulness, and had become in- 



Revolution 175 

struments of oppression and extortion. For a long time, 
as conditions grew gradually worse, the spirit of revolt 
had been growing in the breasts of an outraged people, 
but they were not fully conscious of the real cause of their 
wrongs and misery. The people realized their wretched 
condition, and were awake to the need of improved con- 
ditions, but the spirit of revolution was unformed and 
the discontent undefined. It was the atheistic writings of 
Rousseau and Voltaire that crystallized this revolutionary 
spirit. They dwelt on the miseries of civilization, and set 
forth the preferability of the savage state to that of the 
civilized. Their false philosophy undermined the founda- 
tions on which government is built. They needed now 
but to point out to the starving, oppressed people who it 
was that had oppressed them and stolen their bread, to 
precipitate the revolution. 

The sum of oppression had been increasing for cen- 
turies until it became so great a burden that it could be no 
longer borne by the people. The storm cloud was long 
in gathering, but the storm itself was all the more fierce 
because so long in gathering. It finally burst in all the 
fury of a tornado upon the country, and swept everything 
before it. It was the sudden and violent termination of a 
work that century after century of misrule and oppression 
had produced. The result could be nothing less than the 
revolution and the reign of terror. 

The French Revolution was the result of many con- 
spiring forces and influences, a mighty cataclysm whose 
magnitude is an indication of the great length of time and 
the variety of the agencies required to produce it. lis 
chief causes were feudalism, misrule, excessive taxation. 



176 The Origin of Man 

and an infidel philosophy. When, the revolution broke 
forth it came like a volcanic eruption, taking the world 
completely by surprise. There had been, it is true, the 
smoke of discontent, and the mutterings and rumblings of 
hidden fires; but not even the wisest statesmen thought 
that there was any danger of an eruption. In an hour 
when it was least expected, the pent-up forces burst forth 
in all their fury, consuming, for the time being, every 
vestige of feudalism, royalty, and religion, as parts of 
the old and rotten order, and bringing confusion and 
chaos throughout the land. 

The French Revolution broke the chains that had been 
forged by unequal laws, established justice, and secured 
the equal rights of the people. The cry "liberty, equality, 
and fraternity" roused the dormant energies of the people 
to a supreme conflict against feudalism and absolutism. 
It gave a long-oppressed and down-trodden people the op- 
portunity to rise from their degradation and become free 
men. It was a great social upheaval. The people were 
gathered into a general assembly, and they began to build 
from the foundation a republic consecrated to liberty, fra- 
ternity, and equality. 

The French Revolution was iconoclastic in method. 
The danger of such a radical method was in reaction, 
especially among a mercurial people like the French. And 
the reaction was not long in coming, revolution and coun- 
ter-revolution. The form of government was changed 
from a republic to an empire, and from an empire back 
again to a republic. But the revolution accomplished its 
chief purpose, and that purpose was equality before the 
law. The destruction wrought by the revolution was 



Revolution 177 

but new creation on a higher and a broader scale. The 
feudal system was destroyed, the oppression of despotism 
was at an end, and the people gained a written constitu- 
tion in which their rights were recognized. 

The evolutionists, with their usual inability to recog- 
nize any changes except such as conform to the require- 
ments of their theory, claim that the French Revolution 
was not a sudden and complete break with the past; but 
contend that it was a gradual development through feud- 
alism to absolutism, and through absolutism to democracy. 
The evolution was step by step from dominant feudal- 
ism to absolutism in government as a preparation for the 
ultimate expression of national democracy. But the 
feudal system was the result of degeneracy, which was 
destructive to the rights and privileges of the people. And 
absolutism completely crushed out every vestige of privi- 
lege that feudalism had left them. The process of de- 
velopment was downward — a degeneration; and not an 
evolution from the lower to the higher form of govern- 
ment. The development is not true to theory. It is a 
development from a complex feudalism in which many 
nobles rule to a simple absolutism in which one despot 
rules supreme. And the change from absolutism to 
democracy was sudden and radical, which is entirely in- 
consistent with the hypothesis. The revolution came 
when the oppression could no longer be borne. The new 
force of the people slowly arose into actuality, and sud- 
denly threw off the yoke of oppression. The old forms 
of government, failing to yield to the new spirit among* 
the people, were cast off by violent revolution. 
12 



178 The Origin of Man 



IV. 

The advance from Calvanistic Protestantism to Ar- 
minian Protestantism was by means of a religious revo- 
lution. This great religious awakening of the eighteenth 
century was not brought about by age-long development 
through successive improvements in the morals of the 
people, but was the result of a religious reformation of 
scarcely less magnitude and importance than the Lutheran 
Reformation. It had its origin, like the great political 
changes, out of the worst possible conditions in society. 
There had been a long retrograde movement in the morals 
of the people until religion had become a byword. The 
picture of English society in the early part of the eight- 
eenth century, as portrayed by the pen of contemporary 
writers, is scarcely surpassed by the degradation and cor- 
ruption in France under the reign of Louis XIV., or even 
in Rome itself in the period of her greatest corruption. 
It was an enlightened, but corrupt age. There were poets 
of marked ability, scholars of great learning, orators of 
renown, artists of great skill, reasoners with masterly 
powers, gifted statesmen, and blatant infidels. It was said 
of the age : "There is no religion in England. If the sub- 
ject is mentioned in society it excites nothing but 
laughter." 

The services of the Church of England had never been 
more stately and magnificent than in this age. But the 
established church had lost all moral power and restrain- 
ing influence, through the substitution of ritualistic rites 
for the saving spiritual forces. Formalism had sapped 
the spiritual life of the church. The clergy of the state 



Revolution 179 

church were in love with the world, and had no real con- 
ception of the sanctity of their calling. The clergymen 
who ministered at the altars of the church had not re- 
ceived their appointments because of their intellectual 
qualifications or their moral fitness, but for the fat livings 
that went with the office. The sacredness of the office, 
or the moral qualifications necessary to fill it, were not 
taken into consideration. They were ignorant sportsmen 
and fox hunters, gamblers, and drinkers, who knew more 
of vice than of virtue, and were more familiar with the 
race course than the way to heaven. They were ap- 
pointed, not by ecclesiastical authority, but by the nobility, 
who had the appointment of the clergy to the churches 
within the bounds of their estates. The office of the clergy- 
had become wholly a political appointment. The no- 
bility in this way paid off some of their political debts 
by appointing their minions to rich livings. The pulpits 
became, as a consequence, largely filled with irreligious, 
dissipated, ignorant time-servers, who not infrequently 
drew their salaries without rendering any service what- 
ever in return. As a result of this state of things in the 
church, there was no religious influence nor moral re- 
straining force in the nation, and the people were fast 
drifting into political and social ruin. 

Foulness infested literature, profligacy disgraced the 
upper classes, and the masses were utterly degraded. The 
higher classes of society had become so corrupt that they 
had lost all sense of shame, and openly lived lives of in- 
famy. The common people had reached the lowest depths 
of iniquity, and were debased and brutalized. The Eng- 
lish nation was tottering on the verge o\ ruin, ready to 
fall to pieces of its own moral rottenness. The conserving 



180 The Origin of Man 

force of religion was destroyed, and there was left no 
power in the nation to save her from certain ruin. 

It was in a corrupt age like this that John Wesley, a 
sincere formalist, a strict churchman, and an able scholar, 
was led into a deeper religious experience. While listen- 
ing to the reading of Luther's introduction to the book 
of Romans, he felt his heart strangely warmed. There 
came into his life in that moment the conscious knowl- 
edge of that power which was the primary influence in 
creating the reformation under Luther. Wesley gathered 
around him a few followers, and began to preach a free, 
full, and conscious salvation from sin. The higher classes 
scorned his doctrines, the churches were closed against 
him, and he was forced to turn to the open fields for 
preaching-places, and to the degraded masses for congre- 
gations. Wesley suffered all manner of indignities. He 
preached in the midst of contempt and obloquy. He was 
opposed and scoffed at by the higher classes. And he was 
stoned and suffered violence from the hands of the mobs. 
But this great religious revival, coming from a higher 
source than man, could not be stopped, or even long hin- 
dered, by opposition and persecution. 

The masses, however, were reached and saved from 
their iniquities, and lifted out of their degradation, and 
through them the higher classes were reached. For the 
progress of Christianity has never been from the higher 
to the lower classes, but from the lower to the upper. 
Not the noble, not the rich, not the learned, but the poor, 
the weak, the ignorant, the down-trodden, have been the 
first to embrace its teachings, and from these it has spread 
to the higher classes of society. The Church of England 
was reformed, the nation was redeemed from moral pollu- 



Revolution 181 

tion, and millions of the race have been lifted nearer to 
God by this great religious awakening. John Wesley 
is now regarded by the historians as the most influential 
man, and the religious awakening under his preaching, 
as the greatest force of the eighteenth century in Eng- 
land. The Wesleyan movement was not the result of a 
doctrinal controversy, like the Protestant Reformation, 
but was an evangelical reaction against the impiety and 
vice of the age. The religious reformation that pro- 
duced Methodism was not an evolution, but a revolution. 



V. 

The change from the Latin Christianity of Rome to 
the Germanic Christianity of Protestantism was the re- 
sult of a revolution. The Reformation came through the 
light and power of the genius of Luther, bursting through 
the crust formed by the dark ages, and learning the truth 
of God that men are not saved by works alone, but by 
faith. When Christianity came to the throne with Con- 
stantine, the masses of the people were brought into the 
church by compulsion, and the services of the church took 
on the pomp and splendor of heathenism in order to ap- 
peal to the sensuous elements in heathen nature. The 
pure, simple gospel of apostolic times was almost com- 
pletely obscured by pagan rites and worldly splendors. 
Christianity and heathenism were merged into Roman 
Catholicism. When the Roman government was over- 
thrown by the hordes of barbarians that overran the 
country, and all was chaos and confusion, the reigning 
pope, being the strongest power left in the nation, as- 



1 82 The Origin of Man 

sumed the responsibility of the government and brought 
order out of confusion. He saved the nation from an- 
archy and established a stable government. This was a 
worthy deed and deserves the highest commendation ; but 
having once secured political power it was regarded hence- 
forth as a God-given right of the popes. The ecclesiasti- 
cism of the church in time became political tyranny and 
oppression. Kings were compelled to bow at the feet of 
the pope as the supreme ruler. The popes became indif- 
ferent to spiritual conditions, and became ambitious for 
political power, and sought to excel in material ag- 
grandizement, while the doctrines and forms of worship 
fell more and more into superstition and paganism. The 
church was hoary with age, intrenched in power, and cor- 
rupt, from the pope in the Vatican down to the humblest 
peasant. It was a cruel and corrupt age; a moral, polit- 
ical, and intellectual chaos. 

It was in an age like this that Martin Luther was 
born. He was a child of the people, and, while seeking 
an education, he sang bare-footed and bare-headed from 
door to door in the streets of Einsbach to earn his bread. 
After his graduation he was contemplating the study of 
the law, when one day as he was walking with a friend, 
tradition has it that the young man was struck dead at his 
side by lightning. This sudden death made a deep im- 
pression on Luther, and awakened in his mind serious 
thoughts, as to his soul's salvation. He entered a mon- 
astery and sought to quiet his conscience by fasting, 
penance, and prayer, but his distress continued and his 
burden grew heavier. His monastic order soon rewarded 
his zeal by sending him on a mission to Rome. And 
while there he sought relief for his sin-burdened soul by 



Revolution 183 

climbing Pilate's stair upon his knees, kissing each step 
as he mounted upward. There flashed upon Luther's 
mind, with the suddenness of the lightning that struck 
his friend down at his side, the scripture he had read in 
the Bible chained in the library of the monastery, "The 
just shall live by faith." He said to himself, "If this is 
true, what am I doing here?" And he arose from his 
knees henceforth to climb by faith and not by works. 

Luther had gone to Rome a sincere papist, but he 
returned to his native country thoroughly disgusted with 
the moral degradation and the corrupt abuses he had wit- 
nessed in the holy city. About the time of his return, the 
pope ordered a general indulgence sale in order to replen- 
ish his depleted treasury. Among these agents that went 
forth to offer indulgences at a price, John Tetzel was the 
most scandalous. He traveled from place to place 
through Germany beating his drum, and offering his 
wares for sale in the most public manner possible When 
Luther saw this vulgar peddler offering for sale the 
mercies of heaven, it aroused his righteous indignation 
against the shameless traffic. He drew up ninety-five 
theses against the doctrine of indulgences, and setting 
forth the true way of salvation, and these he nailed to the 
door of the church at Wirtemburg. He laid the ax at 
the root of the tree of corruption — the false principles of 
theology that caused the corrupt practice. He not only 
attacked the doctrine of indulgences, but showed that the 
doctrine was antagonistic to the grounds of forgiveness 
as set forth in the Holy Scriptures. This idea of justifica- 
tion by faith, for which he contended, was an old doc- 
trine, but it was entirely new to Luther, and also to his 
age. It had been completely hidden from sight by the 



184 The Origin of Man 

pagan rites and ceremonies that had crept into the church 
during the dark ages. 

This bold step involved Luther in many controversies, 
but he bravely defended his position. The authorities 
looked upon this lone monk contending against the cor- 
ruptions of the church, at first, as an object of amusement, 
then of anxiety, then of alarm, and, finally, of intrigue 
and violence. The theologians of the church defended 
her doctrines. They cited the decrees of councils, quoted 
from the opinions of eminent ecclesiastics, and adduced 
evidence from the writings of the church to prove their 
doctrines and to show that Luther was in error. They 
asserted the mighty authority of the Church for the doc- 
trines they taught. The genius of Luther was equal to the 
demands of the occasion, and he now took the second 
great step in the Reformation. He boldly denied the su- 
preme authority of popes and councils, and appealed to 
the Scriptures as the true source of authority. 

The pope issued a bull calling upon Luther to recant, 
ordering his writings to be burned, and threatening him 
with excommunication. But the bold monk publicly 
burned the pope's bull, and thus defied his authority. 
Pressure was now brought upon the civil authorities, and 
he was summoned before the Diet of Worms to answer 
for his heresies. It was a crime to think in his age. He 
did not only think, however, but he had the courage of 
his convictions. And when they demanded that he re- 
tract, he rose to the occasion, and took the third step in 
his revolt against the church by declaring the right of 
private judgment. He said : "Unless I am convinced by 
reason and the Scriptures, I neither can nor will retract 
anything, for my conscience is a captive to God's Word, 



Revolution 185 

and it is neither right nor safe to go against conscience. 
Here I take my stand, I can not do otherwise, God help 
me^ amen." 

The Reformation reached its climax when Luther 
asserted the right of private judgment. His bold stand 
at the Diet of Worms is one of the most striking scenes 
that history records. It is the point from which all the 
subsequent history of civilization and progress take their 
rise. In thus exalting the right of private judgment, 
based on reason and the binding force of conscience en- 
lightened by the Scriptures, in opposition to the arbitrary 
authority of the Church and the State, he revolutionized 
both the Church and State. 

Luther was the commanding figure of the sixteenth 
century. But it is simply nonsense to talk about the age 
being behind him and making him inevitable. The 
Reformation can not be attributed to a general spirit of 
protest among the Germanic peoples against Roman 
imperialism, as personified in the person of the pope. It 
was not merely the result of a protest against the cor- 
ruptions of the Church, the onward march of humanity, 
the necessary progress of society, the spirit of inquiry, 
the renaissance, none of these singly, or combined, caused 
it. Its real cause was a new power implanted in the heart 
of Martin Luther by divine inspiration, the peace that 
comes to the soul through the exercise of faith in the liv- 
ing Christ. It was individualistic — a revolt of one man 
against centralized authority. 

The Reformation was a great intellectual and spiritual 
awakening, due to a new interpretation of the Scriptures. 
and the right to exercise private judgment by the indi- 
vidual. The human mind was emancipated from sacer- 



1 86 The Origin of Man 

dotal authority, and religion was purified from the cor- 
ruptions of the dark ages. It was not the outgrowth of 
age-long progress, spreading ever wider, rising ever 
higher, until it reached its highest development in the 
Reformation. It came when the church was degenerated. 
The pressure of the crust of oppression and moral abuses 
had reached a place where the strain could be no longer 
endured, they were burst through suddenly, and were 
thrown off by violent revolution. 

The Christian religion itself, the greatest of all re- 
ligious movements, originated in a revolution. It was 
not merely the outgrowth of Judaism, nor was it based 
on the highest development of that religious system. This 
system of rites and ceremonies had spent its force and lost 
its power. Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian 
religion, can not be accounted for by natural and histor- 
ical causes. He was by birth a peasant, cradled in a man- 
ger, clothed with humility, despised and rejected of men. 
He can not be accounted for by the laws of heredity and 
environment. It is true he was a priest, not however after 
the regular order of succession in the tribe of Levi, but 
after the order of Melchisedec, without genealogical be- 
ginning or ending. In the darkest hours of history, the 
Messiah came ; under the rule of one of the most profligate 
kings, he was born. The village in which he was reared 
was noted for wickedness, and such was its reputation 
that it was thought that no good thing could come out of 
such a place. 

The beginning of the Christian era was perhaps mor- 
ally the darkest in the history of the world. The moral 
and religious influences of the past seemed to have spent 
themselves. The race had steadily retrograded until it 



Revolution 187 

could not sink deeper in its degradation and continue to 
exist. Religion in the heathen world was synonymous 
with evil. Humanity was a great mass of moral rotten- 
ness. A few, comparatively, held the wealth of the world 
and enjoyed the privileges, while the masses of humanity 
were held in slavery of the most abject type. It was an 
age, it would have seemed, for destruction instead of one 
for salvation. 

By the confession of all men irrespective of their re- 
ligious beliefs, there once appeared a perfect man upon 
the earth, in an imperfect age. When he reached the es- 
tate of mature manhood, suddenly he burst upon our vis- 
ion, without previous training or education, the greatest 
teacher of the ages. There was no reliance in his teaching 
upon corroborative testimony, or on traditional support. 
He gave out his doctrines from the depth of his own con- 
sciousness. He was a marvel to his own age because he 
was not a mere interpreter of truths already revealed, but 
the revealer of new truths. His teachings were not the 
explanation of the text, but were themselves the text. 

Evolution does not explain the spotless character of 
the Christ. Men have never reached excellence in moral 
character without repentance for sins committed, and 
years of righteous living. But the Christ never humbled 
himself before God on account of his sins. He did not 
attain unto moral perfection by long years of self-denial 
and righteous living. He had no need of these aids to 
the development of a holy character. He possessed a 
moral perfection unparalleled and unapproached. But 
there was nothing in his antecedents to account for his 
spotless character. There was nothing inherent in the 
race from which he sprung to produce such an embodi- 



1 88 The Origin of Man 

ment of pure and universal love. - There was nothing in 
the environment of that corrupt age to produce a charac- 
ter of such matchless purity. He surpasses the highest 
attainments of men. He is the noblest ideal of the race. 
We are forced to go back two thousand years to one of the 
most corrupt ages of the world to find the ideal man.* 

In Jesus Christ we find a personality that is real and 
imperishable. He was born and lived among men. And 
every attempt to resolve him into a myth has failed. He 
is such a person that men could not have imagined him, 
if they would, and would not, if they could. The char- 
acter of the Christ is so perfect that no man of his age, 
however gifted, could have invented it. He stands alone 
as no other man ever stood. He is a distinct type by him- 
self. All other men can be classified, but he defies classifi- 
cation. The greatness of men is shared by other men in 
the same realm. Among philosophers, Plato and Aris- 
totle; among poets, Homer and Dante; among soldiers, 
Caesar and Napoleon; among statesmen, Cromwell and 
Lincoln ; among orators, Cicero and Demosthenes ; among 
reformers, Luther and Wesley. But Jesus Christ stands 
alone in supreme isolation. There is no one that is worthy 
to be compared with him. The story of the Christ could 
not have been pieced together, and attributed to a myth- 
ical master. It is not a mosaic, it is a living unity. It is 
not the creation of faith, it is the creator of faith. 

Christianity was not developed from Judaism, but 
Jesus Christ came into the world and established this new 
type of religion. He was not merely the son of Israel 
after the flesh, he was the son of God manifest in the 



*The Mind of the Master.— Watson. 



Revolution 189 

flesh. The ordinary laws of generation were suspended, 
and contrary to the invariable order of nature, the Son 
of God was incarnate. The redemption of the race did 
not come by the ascent of man up to God, but by the de- 
scent of the Son of God to humanity. And the fittest did 
not survive at the expense of the unfit, but the holiest 
character that ever lived was crucified that the unfit might 
survive. 

There was not only a difference between the teachings 
of Christ and the traditions of the scribes, but a total 
divergence, an absolute contrariety in fundamental prin- 
ciple and spirit. He said nothing about the Levitical 
system, he ignored the rites of the law, and repudiated 
the traditions of the elders. When a humble penitent 
came to him burdened down with his load of sin, he sim- 
ply told him that his sins were forgiven, and that his 
faith had saved him. He never sent the penitent to the 
priest to offer the sin offering, in order to obtain remission 
of sins. His method was revolutionary, and consequently 
aroused the determined opposition of the scribes and tra- 
ditionalists. 

The Christian religion was not an evolution, but a 
revolution. The system of Judaism was prior to Chris- 
tianity and foreshadowed it, but it failed to grasp its cen- 
tral doctrine, salvation by faith in a Divine Redeemer. 
The old systems of religion that went before Judaism did 
not produce Judaism. There was no shading of one sys- 
tem of belief in God into another and higher belief. Pan- 
theism was not the outgrowth of polytheism, nor was 
monotheism the product of pantheism. And Judaism did 
not gradually develop among the Jewish people. Israel 
did not originate the idea of one God, that idea produced 



190 The Origin of Man 

Israel. All these old systems of religion were practically 
dead when Christianity came into existence, and its ap- 
pearance was sudden and phenomenal. 

Between the last of the prophets and the advent of the 
Christ, there was a period of four hundred years of 
silence, during which the religious development of the 
people came to a standstill and degeneration took place. 
There appeared a lower type of religious teachers, who 
obscured the spiritual teachings of the law and multi- 
plied external rites. The prophets were superseded by 
the scribes, who magnified the letter of the law, and lost 
sight of the spirit. And there was nothing left of the 
old system, taught in the law and the prophets, except 
empty forms and useless ceremonies. And for this rea- 
son the age that preceded the advent of the Messiah 
yielded nothing of value to the age that followed. It 
was a sterile age, yielding nothing intellectual or spiritual. 
It was in an age like this that Christianity had its origin. 
Its sudden advent was necessary to save humanity from 
utter ruin on account of its moral pollution, 



VI. 

These revolutionary changes by which the race has ad- 
vanced politically, socially, and religiously, are diamet- 
rically opposed to the hypothesis of evolution. But evolu- 
tionists account for these sudden radical changes that 
have occurred in the history of the progress of the race 
in a way that is entirely satisfactory to themselves. They 
regard them as concentrated evolutions in which all the 
steps have been taken, but we fail to see them. Evolu- 



Revolution 191 

tion makes the great men who have arisen and trans- 
formed their age through their genius the incarnation of 
the spirit of the age. History is reduced to a national 
science, an irresistible, relentless tide, which is and must 
be what it is as the result of unconscious evolution. The 
history of the development of the race is a kind of totality, 
which can not be other than it is, because of this irresisti- 
ble tide of unconscious influence. 

Let a man distinguish himself among his fellow-men, 
and he is accounted for by showing that he sprung from 
some distinguished ancestor. The first chapters of his 
biography deal with his parents and his grandparents, 
making them out great in some way, though the world 
may never have heard of them, and, moreover, never 
would have heard of them had not their descendant dis- 
tinguished himself. If there can not be found in the im- 
mediate ancestors of the man of genius the qualities that 
produced him, then his ancestry is traced back to the 
remotest generations of the past, until there is found a 
progenitor whose existence accounts for him. Has the 
man distinguished himself on the field of battle, his mili- 
tary genius is accounted for by tracing him back to some 
soldier ancestor of the past. How familiar have we all 
become with the assertion found in the biography of sol- 
diers, or seen in the public press, that "his family traces 
a direct descent from a Norman who fought with William 
the Conqueror at the battle of Hastings." And his abil- 
ity to command men, and the courage he exhibits on the 
field of battle amidst the roar of artillery and the shriek 
of bursting shells, are shown to be only natural to one 
whose ancestor fought in that noted battle. Docs the 
name of the military genius indicate that he is of Scotch 



192 The Origin of Man 

extraction, then he is traced back' to a Scotch ancestry, 
and it is established beyond a peradventure that he de- 
scended from the branch of an old border clan that made 
common cause with William Wallace, which fully ex- 
plains both his genius and his daring and unconquerable 
spirit? Should the great man be so unfortunate as to 
possess a name that can in no way be traced to some re- 
mote ancestor across the sea, then he is traced to the no- 
bility that came over in the Mayflower. He must be ac- 
counted for in some manner, for it is impossible that the 
ability he has shown should be his own, underived from 
some ancestor. But, unfortunately, it often occurs that 
no such name can be found on the passenger list of the 
proud old ship that brought the pilgrim fathers to these 
shores. The descent of the great man must have been 
from those whose duty it was to climb the rigging. 
Hence, if the genius is not descended from a lofty nobility, 
he has, at least, descended from a nobility that has been 
aloft. 

But if the man who has distinguished himself can not 
be traced back to some noble line in the past, he is ac- 
counted for by making him the product of his environ- 
ment. The circumstances that surrounded him produced 
in him these qualities that enabled him to distinguish him- 
self. The world would never have heard of him had he 
not lived in that age and been placed in that environment. 
It was his environment that influenced him more than 
he influenced his environment. He is the creature of cir- 
cumstances. Carlyle says of this method of accounting 
for great men : "Show our critics a great man, a Luther, 
for example, they begin to, what they call 'account for 
him ;' not to worship him, but to take the dimensions of 



Revolution 193 

him — and bring him to be a little kind of man ! He was 
the creature of the Time; they say: the Time called him 
forth, the Time did everything, he nothing — but what the 
little critic could have done too! This seems to me but 
melancholy work. The time called forth ? Alas ! we have 
known Times call loudly enough for their great man; 
but not find him when they called. He was not there; 
Providence had not sent him ; the Time calling its loud- 
est, had to go down to confusion and wreck because he 
would not come when called."* 

The idea is absurd that great men are the product of 
great national emergencies, and that it requires these 
emergencies to call them forth. The French Revolution 
was a theater for a great man, if there ever was one, but 
these times failed to produce a single great man. It is one 
of the greatest fallacies of the evolutionary philosophy 
which makes the man of genius the product of his cir- 
cumstances. The greatest genius is said to be at once the 
product and cause of his times. He has no independent 
powers that are strictly his own, but he has descended 
from the whole past order of things. Yet it is admitted 
that the great man is the principal factor in some great 
advance movement. But he is produced by his times, and 
becomes himself a cause in producing changes in existing 
conditions. By accounting for the man in this way, and 
explaining that he is the cause of certain advance move- 
ments, thus making him a product and a cause at the 
same time, it is sought to avoid difficulties that are fatal 
to the theory. But this is virtually to have an effect with- 
out a cause, and at the same time make an effect produce 



*Hero and Hero Worship, p. 21. 
13 



194 The Origin of Man • 

its cause. If the Revolution produced Luther, he cer- 
tainly did not produce the Revolution. And if he was 
the cause of this great religious movement, it could not 
have produced him. 

War never created a hero out of a coward, but it gives 
the hero a chance to reveal his heroism. A great national 
crisis never produced a statesman, it enables the man with 
a genius for statescraft to display his powers. The age in 
which the reformer lives does not push him on, and make 
him inevitable, it gives him an opportunity to display his 
genius. The men who distinguished themselves in the 
past, were great when the opportunity for the exhibition 
of greatness presented itself. The circumstances discov- 
ered the great man to the world. When the emergency 
arises, the men of genius are ready to meet it. And the 
fact of their greatness is revealed to the world in the 
ability they display in meeting and mastering the diffi- 
culties the emergency presents. They are already great, 
in that they possess these latent powers, and an opportu- 
nity was only wanting that they might exhibit them. 
How many hundreds of other men had seen a chandelier 
swing, witnessed an apple fall, noticed the lid of a teaket- 
tle lift, and felt the recoil of a gun ! It makes a decided 
difference whether it is a Galileo, a Newton, a Watt, or 
a Maxim who sees and feels, whether what is seen and 
felt results in a great discovery or invention. Hundreds 
of others had the same opportunity that these men had, 
but nothing was suggested to their minds. It was the 
quickness and inventiveness of the mind that caused these 
things to suggest vast possibilities to these men, and noth- 
ing to the others. 

The men who have distinguished themselves in the 



Revolution 195 

world's history have not been the descendants of noble 
families. The great statesmen have not been the sons of 
statesmen. The great generals have not been from a long 
line of soldiers. The history of the world might have 
been different could the great sovereign have left an heir 
to his throne of equal ability, or the statesman have had 
a son who inherited his own genius. The men for the 
times have not been the result of the process of evolution. 
They have distinguished themselves because of their nat- 
ural ability. They have been able to direct the affairs of 
the nations because of their statescraft; they have won 
battles because of their military genius ; they have made 
great inventions because of their inventive genius; and 
they have excelled in the field of learning because of their 
predilection for their studies. 

Men have not been mere instruments in the hands of 
their age, which, unaided by them, would have produced 
the same results by other instruments. Great men in his- 
tory have appeared at the beginning of new movements. 
They have inaugurated changes in the world. And these 
advance movements never would have taken place had 
there been no great men to usher them into existence. 
Great political changes, for example, have never taken 
place without the direct intervention of individual wills 
and the genius of men to organize new systems of gov- 
ernment, and to place the indelible stamp of their own per- 
sonality upon the institutions they created. The genius 
of Caesar molded the institutions of Rome in the most 
direct manner, and created an imperialism that lasted a 
thousand years. The French Empire was created by the 
military genius and statesmanship o\ the first Napoleon. 
It never could have grown out of the conditions prevail- 



196 The Origin of Man 

ing in Europe, had it not been for his ability as a com- 
mander, his great ambition, his mental resources, and his 
individual character. If there had been no Richelieu, the 
history of France would in all probability have been en- 
tirely different from what it has been. If there had been 
no Cromwell, the history of England would differ mate- 
rially from that recorded. And if there had never been 
a Luther, no one could give an intelligent guess as to 
what the history of Germany, England, and America 
might have been. 

Genius is not merely the product of antecedent condi- 
tions. No one can foretell the advent of the next great 
man. There is only one great man among the millions. 
And if environment has anything to do in producing the 
men of genius, it seems strange that they are almost in- 
variably the result of unfavorable environment, and never 
of the most favorable surroundings. The usurper not in- 
frequently surpasses the greatest deeds of the legitimate 
heir to the throne, and makes his name immortal. No 
really great man has ever left a truly great son. The son 
often gains place because some of the greatness of his 
father is reflected upon him, but he would have remained 
unknown had it not been that his father distinguished 
himself. Poverty has usually rocked the cradle of the 
men who have become the master minds of the world. 
Men have become great in spite of their environment. 
Genius is within them. And they master the difficulties 
and succeed in spite of circumstances. Genius has neither 
heirs nor ancestors but appears where and when least 
expected, regardless of all earthly distinctions and pre- 
vious conditions. It is generally the child of obscure 
birth, and not the child from the home of luxury, that 



Revolution 197 

lights the torch of civilization. And it is one of equal ob- 
scurity of origin that receives the light from his hand and 
carries it onward. These men are epochal characters in 
history. They are the prominent mountain peaks of hu- 
manity. Such men have been possessed with an all-con- 
suming passion to accomplish a great purpose, and, lone- 
handed, achieved success in spite of the opposition of the 
world. The men who have revolutionized the thought, 
changed the customs, and advanced the civilization of the 
world have all been men of this stamp. 



But nature, with a matchless hand, sends forth her nobly born, 
And laughs the paltry attributes of wealth and rank to scorn ; 
She molds with care a spirit rare, half human, half Divine, 
And cries exultantly, 'Who can make a gentleman like mine?' ' : 



Who that knew the family of Abraham Lincoln would 
have prophesied the emancipator? There have been few 
instances in which heredity and environment were more 
unfavorable than in the case of this low-born Kentuckian, 
the offspring of poor, ignorant, shiftless parents, and 
with an ancestry in no way superior to his parents. He 
began life in an old, tumble-down cabin, in a neighbor- 
hood, low, coarse, and brutish, with the lowest society 
about him on every hand. There were no advantages 
whatever in that community for culture. And there was 
nothing apparently to awaken a desire for better things, 
or to cause aspiration to arise in the world. He was not 
called forth by existing circumstances. No one inspired 
him to endeavor. He acquired knowledge because of his 
intense desire to know, and rose to distinction by the force 
of his own indomitable will. Regardless of his low birth, 



198 The Origin of Man 

notwithstanding all the unfavorable' circumstances that 
surround him, he rose to eminence. This poor, uncouth 
lad, out of these obscure surroundings, without material 
aid or accidental circumstances, rose to the supreme place 
in American history. We see him assert himself with 
growing energy and enterprise until he lifts himself, by 
the sheer force of his character, from the lowest level of 
society to the highest position attainable by the citizens of 
a free government. 

There was no man in the nation that was able to grasp 
and comprehend the trend of events except this one man. 
In the darkest hour of the nation's history, when the 
country was in the throes of mortal conflict, and when it 
seemed that the nation must be rent in twain, there came 
from the people, a man almost unknown, who became the 
savior of his country. The man and the hour had met. 
And he was master of the situation because of his match- 
less powers of mind. The perilous times did not produce 
him, he brought order out of chaos. He did not, as some 
have thought, attain greatness by discovering the trend 
of the times, learning what the people desired, and then 
directed the moral forces of the nation in such channels 
as to produce these results. He held advanced views on 
the slavery question. But he fully comprehended the 
problems that confronted the nation. And he set for him- 
self the colossal task of preserving the union, and at the 
same time freeing the slaves. The greatness of the man 
is revealed in his ability to hold his views on slavery in 
check until the conservative element in the nation saw 
that the slaves must be freed in order to preserve the 
Union. And just at the right moment he signed the 
emancipation proclamation. The slaves were freed and 



Revolution 199 

the Union was preserved. Abraham Lincoln, the greatest 
American statesman, was a revolution, not an evolution. 

A tyrant, Charles I., was upon the English throne, 
who was utterly indifferent to the welfare of the country ; 
and was intent only on exalting himself and his throne at 
the expense of the people, whose aspirations he scorned, 
and whose rights he trampled under foot. He was ut- 
terly insincere, making fair promises to the two oppos- 
ing parties in the government, and seeking in this way to 
regain some of his power that he saw slipping from him, 
by playing the two factions against each other. He was 
determined to impose a tyrannical yoke on a free people, 
and sought deliberately to crush out all their highly- 
prized privileges. He reigned without parliament, he 
tampered with justice, and he secured the means to sup- 
port his government by forced loans. He attempted to 
rule not by the consent of the people, but without their 
consent. He reigned alone with a despotism almost equal 
to the absolutism of Louis XIV. 

The Puritans, outraged by this reign of unrighteous- 
ness, drew the sword to deliver the land from the iron 
hand of oppression. Knaves were the masters of the 
realm, and the whole country was bowed in shame. When 
the people rose against Charles, he sought to avert the 
danger by making promises he had no intention to fulfill, 
but his perfidy cost him his throne. In the dark hour of 
revolution, a farmer left his plow and volunteered as a 
soldier in the parliamentary army, and by his military 
genius won his way from post to post until he reached 
the position as commander of the army of the people. 
Cromwell meets the king's forces on the field oi battle. 
and by his superior ability as a general defeats the king's 



200 The Origin of Man 

army, and lifts the disgrace from England. He takes 
hold of the reins of government, and by his wise states- 
manship guides successfully the affairs of the state. 
There was no one else to uphold the power and sustain 
the authority of the nation, and he shoulders the respon- 
sibility. As Lord Protector of the Commonwealth he 
mastered the enemies of his country, developed her re- 
sources, created a navy, making possible England's su- 
premacy of the seas, and laid the foundation for her future 
greatness as a world power. 

Oliver Cromwell was a man of marked ability, in- 
finite talent, and indomitable courage. He restored law, 
revived learning, and secured prosperity. He was one of 
the wisest statesmen, and the ablest ruler that England 
ever had. He was ambitious, but his ambitions were 
noble, for they were directed toward the welfare and glory 
of his country. He usurped power, but he did not use it 
for his own aggrandizement, but for the benefit of the 
nation. He directed his power to save his country from 
anarchy. Had not a master hand been at the helm to 
guide the affairs of the state, there might have been en- 
acted in England scenes scarcely less appalling than those 
that occurred during the French Revolution. In the Puri- 
tan Revolution, from first to last of all the men, he was 
the one indispensable person. He was king all but in 
name. And the system of government he gave England 
was as nearly the absolute product of the will and intel- 
lect of one man as the world had ever seen. His govern- 
ment did not arise by evolution out of the old monarchy, 
but by revolution when the old monarchy had degener- 
ated. There were doubtless materials furnished for the 
new governmental structure out of the antecedent condi- 



Revolution 201 

tions of the old monarchy. But without his matchless 
ability as a statesman to devise and execute such a system, 
England never would have had the government he gave 
her. Oliver Cromwell, the ablest statesman and the great- 
est ruler England has ever produced, was a revolution, not 
an evolution. He was not the product of his age, he revo- 
lutionized his age. He shines in uncrowned sovereignty 
as one of the noblest and sublimest of men. 

The new republic of France was torn with anarchies, 
shaken with discontent, and ready to fall to pieces on ac- 
count of misrule, when an unknown lieutenant of artil- 
lery came to the rescue of law and order. He was the 
son of a degenerated Italian nobleman. The descendant 
of a frayed-out aristocracy. He was born on the barren 
island of Corsica, and was given an education at the ex- 
pense of the state on account of his poverty. He entered 
the army, rose to distinction, grew in power, overcame 
his enemies in a hundred battles, and became the great- 
est military genius of his age. Napoleon ranks as a 
general with the greatest commanders of history. He 
was as great as a statesman as he was as a commander, 
and as great as a ruler as he was as a statesman. He 
brought order out of confusion in France, developed the 
industries, and restored the finances. He was a man of 
irresistible force of will, with matchless powers of con- 
centration, and dauntless courage. He won men to him 
by the flash of his eye, and held them to unswerving loy- 
alty by the power of his personality. He possessed tran- 
scendent gifts and marvelous powers. Nothing in history. 
or even in romance, approaches the facts oi his marvelous 
career. Without the advantage of birth, the aid of 
patronage, or the influence of friends in twelve years 



202 The Origin of Man 

from an unknown officer of artillery, he rose to the high- 
est pinnacle of human greatness. Kings trembled on 
their throne at the mentioning of his name, and well they 
might, for he made and unmade kings, and regulated at 
his pleasure the affairs of distant courts. He flashes like 
a meteor across the sky of the old world. Beginning in 
France, burning with increasing brilliancy, now in Italy, 
thence in Egypt, and then in rapid succession in Austria, 
Spain, Russia, obscured for a time at Elba, to flash again 
into view at Waterloo, finally to be consumed at St. 
Helena. Napoleon Bonaparte, the soldier, statesman, 
and emperor, was a revolution, not an evolution. 

This has been a somewhat lengthy review of these 
familiar facts of history, but it was necessary in order 
to illustrate the views that are presented in the following 
pages. We have seen that the changes that have taken 
place in human governments in great political advance 
movements have been the results of revolutions, and have 
had their origin, not out of the highest development, but 
out of national degeneracy. In like manner the social 
revolutions have been brought about in the same way, and 
always out of similar conditions. The religious reforma- 
tions have invariably begun in a low state of morals, and 
have been, as it were, new creations out of moral chaos. 
The men who have been the prime movers in producing 
these transformations in the state, society, and the 
church have had their origin in obscurity, and have sud- 
denly arisen in times of emergency, and quickly wrought 
these marvelous changes. These facts are diametrically 
opposed to the hypothesis of evolution, but they are not 
introduced here merely to show that the theory fails to 
explain the facts of history. They have not been pre- 



Revolution 203 

sented merely to show that the progress of civilization 
has not been in harmony with the requirements of evolu- 
tion, but chiefly as illustrations of what has taken place 
in nature in the production of the earth with its various 
forms of life. And if it can be shown that the earth and 
life have been produced in a similar manner, then the 
theory of special creation may be established. In the 
chapters that follow we shall undertake to show that the 
earth, the species, and man have all originated by revo- 
lution. 



THE FORMATION OF THE EARTH 

205 



"Science conducts us back in the history of a world to a primi- 
tive incandescent vapor. She calls that a beginning, and may assert 
that every physcial event of a hundred millions of ages existed 
potentially in that. But this is really no explanation of the ultimate 
and only real cause of any thing. Reason demands the cause of 
this beginning.. What were the antecedents of the cosmical vapor? 
In the absence of antecedents, what was the cause of this fire-mist — 
of these forces active in it?" — Winchell. 

"Beginning with the panorama of the Nebular Hypothesis, run 
the eye over the field of Palaeontology, Geology, Botany, and Zoology. 
Watch the majestic drama of Creation unfolding, scene by scene 
and act by act. Realize that one power, and only one, has marshaled 
the figures for this mighty spectacle; that one hand, and only one, 
has carried out these transformations; that one principle, and only 
one, has controlled each subsidiary plot and circumstance; that the 
same great patient, unobstrusive law has guided and shaped the whole 
from its beginnings in bewilderment and chaos to its end in order, 
harmony, and beauty." — Drummond. 



206 



THE FORMATION OF THE EARTH 

T T is held by evolutionists that a uniform plan of con- 
struction pervades the inorganic world in all its 
periods of development, and that this plan after which 
it has been constructed is that of evolution. In the 
geological history of the earth each of its successive con- 
ditions has been regarded as being related to those which 
preceded it and those which followed it as a series. It is 
confidently asserted that there is such a succession of 
geological strata and connection of the periods of devel- 
opment as constitute an evolution. The whole physical 
world is therefore regarded as the result of the opera- 
tions of the law of evolution under the activities of en- 
ergies which we call the forces of nature. And the al- 
leged fact of the unity of organic history is looked upon 
as firmly establishing the doctrine of evolution. But the 
hypothesis of evolution has obscured to a great extent 
important facts connected with the earth's development. 
The succession of the periods of advance has been as- 
sumed as positive proof that one period has been the 
outgrowth and cause of another. This method of reason- 
ing, as we have already seen, is fallacious. The geolog- 
ical periods do follow each other, it is true, but the one 
is not the cause of the other any more than day is the 
cause of night, or spring is the cause of summer. The 
conditions oi one period furnish the materials and basis 
for the next, but the changed conditions are the result 

207 



208 The Origin of Man 

of forces outside of the geological periods and the mate- 
rials themselves. 

A careful and candid investigation of all the phenom- 
ena connected with the development of the physical world 
shows that this so-called law of progress and continuity 
does not account for the origin of the planet on which we 
live. There has been a development in the history of ihe 
earth, but the development has not been the cause of the 
earth's advancement. The laws of degeneration and 
revolution have played an important part in the develop- 
ment of this planet. The theory of evolution can not 
satisfactorily account for the changes in nature, which 
produced the inorganic world. The changes in nature 
have not been by regular recurring advances of slight 
progressive changes, but changes and progress have fol- 
lowed decay and destruction. There have come in the 
history of the earth's development overmastering re- 
curring cycles, which have introduced new conditions 
and inaugurated changes that could not be accounted for 
by previous changes and conditions. As we investigate 
the facts relating to the formation of the earth, we shall 
learn whether the assumptions of evolutionists are well 
founded. 

I. 

The beginnings of the earth's history can not be 
learned from the geological records. We must go back of 
the recorded facts as they are revealed in the strata of 
the earth for the data upon which to found our theory of 
the beginnings of the present order of things. We must 
enter the uncertain field of speculation, and be guided here 



Formation of the Earth 209 

by the aid of the science of astronomy. But the facts 
and speculations of astronomy afford us grounds for a 
working theory as to how the solar system originated. 
What may be inferred about these earlier conditions is 
set forth in the Nebular Hypothesis of La Place. 

This hypothesis supposes that all the matter of the 
solar system was once a revolving mass of widely ex- 
tended vapor, having a diameter equal with the orbit of 
Neptune. There being no exact information as to the 
way in which the earth was formed, we are compelled to 
be content with a mere hypothesis as to its origin. The 
hypothesis is not demonstrated as yet, but there are a 
number of facts that are in harmony with its deductions, 
and of the order required to establish its truth. La Place 
assumed that the space in which the solar system now 
moves was once filled by a gaseous cosmic matter of a 
high degree of temperature. This enormous mass of 
nebula constantly lost heat by radiation, and condensed 
gradually around a central nucleus. These particles of 
gaseous matter were not only subject to condensation, 
but were subjected to the laws of motion, and were hur- 
ried through space in an immense ring around the axis 
of the system. 

The constant loss of heat and the contraction of the 
spheroidal mass had the effect of increasing the speed 
of the rotation. At the same time the centrifugal force 
was proportionately increased, and the law of attraction, 
which had hitherto prevented the molecules at the cir- 
cumference from flying off into space, was at last counter- 
balanced by the centrifugal force, and were thrown off 
from the mass in the form o\ a circular revolving ring 
like those of the planet Saturn. This ring continued to 
14 



210 The Origin of Man 

rotate around the parent mass until the oscillations to 
which it was subjected produced a break, and the whole 
material of the ring was gathered by mutual attraction 
into a gaseous globe which continued to revolve about the 
nucleus. In the process of time the principal mass, under 
the influence of refrigeration and acceleration of motion, 
threw off another ring. This new ring revolved around 
the central mass until the centrifugal force overcame 
gravitation and produced a rupture, when the particles 
gathered themselves into another revolving gaseous globe. 
From time to time this process was repeated, and a series 
of globes were formed at varying distances from the cen- 
ter of the system. These globes became the planets, and 
the central remnant the sun. The largest detached globes 
of matter were formed of rings that were thrown off 
when the parent mass was largest. The rings that formed 
Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Mars having been sep- 
arated from the parent mass, the ring which formed the 
earth was detached. The planets have continued to re- 
volve in an orbit that marks the periphery of the parent 
mass at the time they were separated from it. 

The process of cooling and condensation was repeated 
by each individual planet in turn. And when the acceler- 
ated rotation overcame the influence of gravitation, rings 
were thrown off from them in the same manner that 
they were separated from the original mass. These rings 
revolved about the planets until they reached a velocity 
that overcame the force of gravitation, which caused 
them to rupture, and they were formed into moons. In 
the case of the large planets the cooling process did not 
reach the point of liquefaction until the rotation had be- 
come sufficiently rapid to detach several rings, hence, 



Formation of the Earth 211 

they have more than one moon. The earth being smaller 
threw off but one moon, and then became too rigid to re- 
peat the process. And the smaller planets attained the 
rigid condition before they acquired velocity sufficient to 
detach their periphery. 

The rapid loss of heat which the cosmical vapor un- 
derwent produced a rapid contraction in the volume of 
the earth. The more volatile substances were gathered 
in dense clouds at the outer surface, and as these atoms 
cooled by radiation into space without, they combined 
with each other and were precipitated in rain into the 
seething mass of fiery mist, where they were absorbed 
in the increasing nucleus. All the solid substances of the 
exterior vapor were at length condensed and precipi- 
tated themselves, and became a part of the nucleus. As 
radiation progresses the vaporous matter of the surround- 
ing atmosphere and substances maintained in the gaseous 
state by extreme heat gradually become disengaged from 
the luminous mass, and precipitate themselves on the 
nucleus. The aqueous vapor and more volatile substances 
gathered in a dense mass of clouds at the outer surface 
of the atmosphere, and poured in fierce corrosive rains 
upon the heated nucleus, combining with it a part of the 
substances, the rest being thrown off in vapor to fall 
again. The earth in this stage of its development was a 
void and desolate mass. And darkness settled upon the 
vaporous deep, and continued through long ages. 

Within, the mass the force of gravitation brought the 
particles together in a denser molten globe. And there 
follows the nebulous condition, that of an incandescent 
molten globe surrounded by a vast aqueous vapor. As 
yet no water exists on the surface of the earth, that which 



/ 



212 The Origin of Man 

has fallen with the minute particles 6f matter was thrown 
off again as vapor. All the water that now rests upon 
the earth and pervades the atmosphere was in a vaporous 
form extending about the earth to an unknown distance 
in the surrounding space. The earth was a glowing 
molten globe for a long period of time before any crust 
could be formed upon it. The high temperature of the 
earth gradually decreased through radiation into space, 
and was slowly cooled by falling rain. The falling rain 
and radiation at last gained the mastery over the heated 
surface. A crystallization of the least fusible elements 
and simple compounds eventually took place in the outer 
portions of the molten mass forming a lava-like crust. 
But even after a tolerably continuous crust had formed, 
volcanic outbursts must have been frequent and stupen- 
dous. As refrigeration continued, the crust resting on this 
molten mass gradually became more stable. The fire is 
now confined within the crust and there falls upon the 
blackened crust the increasing aqueous and acid rain 
from the atmosphere, forming at last a universal ocean of 
boiling water which covers the face of the globe. The 
greater part of the watery vapor suspended in the at- 
mosphere is now condensed into the heated ocean rest- 
ing on the solid crust. 

La Place based his theory of the original gaseous con- 
dition of the solar system on the relation of the planets 
to each other and to the sun, on the planes of their revo- 
lution, and the direction in which they revolve. This 
brilliant hypothesis, that science has advanced for the 
uniform translatory motion of the planets, agrees in a 
remarkable manner with certain facts in the subsequent 
history of the earth as disclosed by geology. By this 



Formation of the Earth 213 

hypothesis we trace the earth back to a molten sphere, the 
molten sphere back to a gaseous globe, the gaseous globe 
back to a central sun, and the central sun back to a dif- 
fused nebula occupying vast space. This is, as a matter 
of course, all the result of speculation, and may or may 
not be true, but, as it is the best explanation that science 
is able to furnish, we may as well accept its truth until 
something better is suggested to take its place. 



II. 

The oldest condition of the earth known to the science 
of geology was when the continents were submerged, and 
there was a universal ocean covering their surface. The 
data of the Archaean era are not abundant, but they are 
sufficient to give us a pretty clear conception of the con- 
dition of the earth in that age and the forces that were 
operating in producing changes in the earth's crust. The 
molten interior of the earth continued to shrink, and in the 
course of time became too small for the enveloping crust. 
The nucleus in the process of solidification would con- 
tinue to shrink, and the shrinkage would cause rents in 
the surface. The waters of the surrounding ocean would 
flow into these fissures, and a great force of steam would 
be generated which would cause an eruption, and the 
first great break in the earth's crust would occur. In 
these great fissures, where the crust had been rent by this 
eruption, the heated waters of the universal ocean poured 
themselves, and they became vast sunken areas in which 
the waters of the ocean were gathered, while from the 
intervening ridges, which were raised up when these 



214 The Origin of Man 

areas sank down, the earth's pent up fires belched forth 
molten lava and volcanic ashes. In this way the first 
dry lands probably appeared, and the ocean beds were 
formed. 

These facts seem to be established from the nature of 
the rocks of this era, for they are all igneous. When the 
upheaved igneous rocks rose above the waters of the 
universal ocean, whose waters had rolled in mighty waves, 
hitherto unobstructed, around the globe, lands were 
formed though they were at first entirely barren. But 
the rains fell in vast abundance from the overhanging 
clouds, streams were formed, and the age-long processes 
of erosion and sedimentation began. The heated waters, 
thick and turbid with earthy and saline matter, with the 
moist and hot atmosphere that then prevailed, carried on 
chemical changes with an intensity now unknown on the 
surface of the earth. The formations of this era, the early 
complex masses of highly crystalline rocks, most of them 
igneous, are the oldest rocks preserved to us. They may 
not be the parts of the first crust that was formed, as we 
now find them, for they have suffered such prolonged and 
severe metamorphism and been subjected to so many dis- 
turbances, that it seems hardly possible the early crust 
could survive all these vicissitudes. The foundation 
masses have been, in the course of time, cast up higher 
than the stratified rocks. Some of these rocks have either 
lost their load of sedimentation by denudation, or they 
were heaved up before there was any sediment deposited 
upon them. And some of the rocks were still the floor 
of the ocean when the oldest sediments were accumulated 
on them, and some subsequent revolution has raised them 



Formation of the Earth 215 

with their load of sediment above the level of the sea. 
These rocks underlie later rocks everywhere. 

The early crust received a covering of bedded rocks 
from the extensive erosion that was in progress in the 
earlier era. Sedimentation went on with great activity, 
sediments were deposited over the ocean beds, while the 
volcanoes were vomiting forth molten matter from the 
heated interior. The sediments accumulated in vast 
layers at the bottoms of the seas, and these accumula- 
tions were solidified. But marine rocks can not form 
lands during their deposition, for this can take place only 
after their upheavel. The accumulated oceans pressed 
heavily against the slopes of their rocky beds, and the 
sediments of the past age weighed down the ocean floors 
with a burden that easily outweighed the crust which 
bridged the hills. And at last the tension became too 
great to be long maintained without a breaking up of 
the crust. The process of refrigeration continues, and 
the heated nucleus constantly loses its heat and shrinks in 
size until it has gradually shrunk away from the envelop- 
ing crust. Finally the process of shrinking has advanced 
so far that the crust was left unsupported, and with ter- 
rible earthquake throes the crust sinks down and wrinkles 
upon into large ridges. In this way the second great col- 
lapse occurs, the ridges are higher raised, and the val- 
leys deeper sunk. In this upheaval of lands the continent 
of North America was roughly sketched by the upheaved 
crust, and the new world after all is the older world. 

The rocks of this era form the most ancient axis o\ 
the Appalachian Mountains. Other belts of these rocks 
extend from the New England states as far as New- 



216 The Origin of Man 

foundland, and they also underlie 'the Rocky Mountains 
to considerable extent. Patches of them are found in 
the Black Hills, in Missouri, and as far south as the state 
of Texas. This second revolution came at the end of the 
Algonkin era, and introduces the next era, that of the 
Paleozoic. 

With the beginning of the Paleozoic era the records 
of the changes in the formation of the earth are com- 
paratively full, and consequently much easier to read. In 
the beginnings of the era there were islands of earlier 
formed lands roughly tracing the future location of the 
continents. Very general upheavals had taken place and 
the waste was laid down to form the foundations of the 
Paleozoic systems. The Cambrian period, the first period 
of this era, was one of sedimentation. Fine sea muds 
were accumulating in the deep seas, but the sedimentation 
was commonly coarse and fragmentary, showing that 
they had been deposited in the shallow waters of the seas 
near the borders of the land. The rocks consist of shales, 
sandstones, conglomerates, and occasional limestones. 

The Lower Silurian was, to begin with, largely a 
limestone making period. But toward the close of the 
period there were mountain buildings and extensive addi- 
tions to the growing continents. In the eastern part of 
North America there were extensive geological changes. 
As the period came to a close the sediments that had been 
gradually accumulating were upheaved, crumbled again, 
and were upheaved once more. By this upheaval of the 
earth's crust the Taconic Range, including the Green 
Mountains of Vermont, was formed. And at the same 
time the pressure affected the regions of the Mississippi 
Valley, raising a broad low island out of the waters in 



Formation of the Earth 217 

the midst of the inland sea. Another throe of the earth 
lifts still higher the germinal ridges of the continent, robs 
the sea of a strip of its dominion, and closes the record 
of the Lower Silurian. 

There now follows the period of the Upper Silurian, 
which is an epoch of vast sedimentation and great quiet. 
This was a time of quiet in which the sedimentations 
were forming rocks, such as sandstone and limestone, of 
great thickness. The rocks that were formed during this 
period are several hundred feet in thickness, showing that 
they must have been a long time in accumulating. The 
development of the continent was similar to that of the 
former period, but was of a vaster extent. But at the 
close of this period the continental plateaus were almost 
wholly submerged under the waters of the oceans. No 
previous marine limestone spreads more widely than the 
Upper Silurian, and in no period is there much less evi- 
dence of dry land. The small remains of land at the 
close of this period were apparently limited to a group of 
islands in the northeastern part of America and the north- 
western part of Europe. 

The next period, the Devonian, was one of transition 
and change. Indications of an unstable condition of the 
earth's crust began to manifest themselves. The im- 
mense accumulations of Silurian sediments had by this 
time so overweighed certain portions of the crust of the 
earth that there was an unheaval of the crust. New lands 
were lifted up, great, muddy, and sandy Hats wore do- 
posited around them, and on the margins oi these shal- 
low Hats stretched extensive swamps. This was also a 
period of great igneous activity. Volcanoes poured out 
their molten rooks over the land and into the sea, and 



2i 8 The Origin of Man 

ejected huge dikes of trap-rock into newly formed beds 
of sediment. The lands were shaken with earthquake 
throes, and were subjected to many upheavals and sub- 
sidences. Violent waves destroyed the coasts, tearing 
away newly formed beds of deposits and throwing up 
sands and gravel over the flats. 

A remarkable feature of the Upper Devonian is the 
immense quantity of the red rocks in its deposits, espe- 
cially the red sandstone that is contained in them. Red 
sandstone is an infallible sign of rapid deposit, and there- 
fore of active physical change. These red rocks of this 
period are thousands of feet in thickness, showing that 
aqueous depositions were going on for a great length of 
time and denuding vast areas of land surface. Conse- 
quently, we have proof of vast changes of level, and of 
immense and rapid denudation. The closing convulsions 
of this period upheaved the lands still higher, and paved 
the way for the more nearly continental conditions of the 
Carboniferous period that succeeded it. 

At the beginning of the Carboniferous period there 
were many large islands and chains of islands which were 
raised out of the sea by the re-elevation at the close of 
the preceding period. As the age wore on the continents 
were slowly lifted out of the surrounding waters, and the 
great continental plateaus were changed from coral seas 
to swampy flats or low uplands. After a lapse of time, 
during which only slow and gradual subsidence occurred, 
a more rapid subsidence took place. The rapid settle- 
ment of the continental areas brought the greater part 
of the fertile plains of the coal formations again under 
water, and shifting sands and muddy tides engulfed and 
buried the remains of the old forests, and heaped on them 



Formation of the Earth 219 

a mass of sediment which flattened them into coal beds. 
And by another general uplift of the continent, a sea area 
becomes a marsh, or region of swamps and low lands. The 
climate is warm and moist and forests develop in great 
luxuriance on these low lands. Trees and ferns grow in 
great abundance, and reach a gigantic height and size 
that perhaps has never since been equaled. After a time 
of greater or less extent a subsidence ensues and the 
waters encroach upon the land once more, and the new 
vegetable layer is covered with mud, then a greater sub- 
sidence carries these regions into deeper waters where 
marine life flourishes, and a layer of limestone is formed 
over them. After a time fresh elevations bring the bot- 
toms of the seas to the surface, and the coal swamps are 
renewed. The frequent oscillations of the coal period 
were doubtless the result of the tremblings of the strained 
crust pushed to the verge of violent rupture. The areas of 
land are pushed above the waters and the tension is re- 
lieved for a time, and then they again sink beneath the 
waves. This process is repeated many times over during 
this period. And at the close of the Carboniferous period 
the immense swamps and low forest-clad plains, that oc- 
cupied the continental areas of North America, again 
sank beneath the waves of the sea, and this epoch was 
overflowed and perished. 

The Carboniferous was followed by the terrible Per- 
mian period, which marked the death of one era and the 
birth of another. This period has often been passed over 
as of little importance by geologists, and has been placed 
by some as the closing epoch of the preceding period. But 
it is a distinct period, and deserves to be given a promi- 
nent place in the study of geology. The importance of a 



220 The Origin of Man 

period can not be measured by the 'extensive deposits that 
have been made during its continuance, which most 
geologists regard as of chief importance, but by the al- 
terations and changes in previous formations. And the 
Permian is a period of great interest because of transition 
from the old to the new. The earth's crust was subjected 
in this period to some of the grandest changes that have 
occurred in the entire course of geological time. 

The nucleus of the earth had shrunk away once more 
from the crust that enveloped it. In the former period 
the frequent upheavals and subsidences indicated that the 
crust was strained to its utmost tension. And the crust 
being no longer able to withstand this strain, it suddenly 
collapses, destroying the crust and throwing up lofty 
mountain chains. The greatest upheaval was in the east- 
ern part of this continent. One grand convulsion rolled 
up the Appalachian Mountains, and has been for this 
reason called the Appalachian Revolution. The accumu- 
lations had increased greatly during the era and had be- 
come of vast thickness, and when the crust finally gave 
way under this great load, the change was one of vast 
extent. This catastrophe of the Permian period was the 
most far-reaching change in the earth's crust that had oc- 
curred up to this time. There was a tremendous transfer 
of materials following this break. In England and Ger- 
many, the rocks of this period lie on the upturned edges 
of the preceding Carboniferous beds. The earth's crust 
was thrown into a series of folds in the Carboniferous for- 
mations, and the tops of these folds were worn away be- 
fore the Permian beds were deposited upon them. The 
magnesian limestone that was deposited in this period, 
lies immediately over the bent and denuded edges and 



Formation of the Earth 221 

surface of the Carboniferous strata. A proof that great 
denudation must have occurred before this limestone 
was deposited. 

In the Mesozoic era the principal land-making and 
formation of mountains was in the western half of this 
continent, with the exception of a strip along the Atlantic 
and the gulf coasts. The Triassic period was one largely 
of sedimentation. The thickness of the rocks of this 
period in the state of Connecticut is from five to ten thou- 
sand feet. There were extensive land areas and inland 
seas, and tremendous outbursts of igneous activity along 
the margins of the continents. And there was extensive 
denudation from the lands thrown up in the Paleozoic 
era. The strata thus formed are intermingled with 
sheets of lava, which were poured out at intervals dur- 
ing the deposition of these beds. The climate was prob- 
ably cold, and there were glacial actions in the eastern 
portion of North America. There are somewhat exten- 
sive beds of Triassic rocks extending from Kansas to 
Texas, and west to California. The slabs and pillars of 
the Garden of the Gods are regarded as belonging to the 
formations of this period. There are also beds of red 
rocks somewhat extensive, reaching from Colorado to 
California, indicating rapid land denudation. And there 
are also found in these rocks in the far west some lime- 
stone of marine formation, showing that they were 
formed in the deep waters of the sea. 

In the Jurassic period land deposition continued. A 
great scries of rocks had been accumulating on a sinking 
sea floor, precisely as took place in the eastern interior 
sea during the Paleozoic era. The pressure at length 
became so great that it made itself fell in the crushing 



222 The Origin of Man 

and folding of the earth's crust. And the Sierra Nevada 
Mountain Range was upheaved. This has been called by 
geologists, the Sierrian Revolution. It is thought that 
the Coast Range of California was thrown up at the same 
time. The lands at the close of this period were, perhaps, 
more extensive than they are at the present time. 

During the early Cretaceous period the land was high, 
but as time progressed there was great subsidence every- 
where. There was a slow subsidence of the large part of 
the earth's surface, and the waters laved the base of the 
loftiest mountain peaks. The Rocky Mountain nucleus 
was reduced to a group of islands. The continents sank 
as they never had sunk before since dry land was first 
elevated. This great and exceptional subsidence was so 
widespread and deep that it brought the continental pla- 
teaus down into the abysmal depths. This subsidence was 
different from the disturbances that ended the Paleozoic 
era. There was at first no breaking of the crust of the 
earth, but merely a slow and long-continued sinking o£ 
the continents, followed, however, by breakings of the 
most stupendous character, causing the formation of the 
greatest mountain chains in the world. By this revolu- 
tion the Rocky Mountains, the Andes, the Alps, and the 
Himalayas rose into importance as great mountain sys- 
tems. The chalk formations that chiefly characterize this 
period were deposited in the abyss of the oceans. And 
they now cover the tops of the highest hills, and are hun- 
dreds of feet in thickness. These facts go to show that 
there has been a revolution in the earth's surface of the 
most stupendous character. 

It is probable that the crust of the earth had become 
so thick and firm that it would stand a long time after 



Formation of the Earth 223 

the molten interior had shrunk entirely away from it. 
And the shrinking of the nucleus having become so great 
there is a vast space left between it and the enveloping 
crust, and by a bending of the crust there is extensive 
subsidence, but when it finally breaks there is a tremen- 
dous upheaval which throws up the great mountain ranges 
of the earth. This vast revolution probably did not occur 
in a single day, but nevertheless, geologically speaking, 
it was very rapid. It was so sudden that it marks the 
boundary between two great eras in the history of the 
earth. By this revolution the Mesozoic time was termi- 
nated and the Cenozoic inaugurated. 

This great revolution that uplifted the continents at 
the close of the Mesozoic era elevated the Cretaceous de- 
posits to a height of ten thousand feet upon the moun- 
tain tops. And something of its vastness can be grasped 
when it is remembered that the chalk formations were 
formed at an abysmal depth in the oceans. The conti- 
nents were outlined by this upheaval into something of 
their modern form, but they were of greater extent in 
the Tertiary Period than they are at the present time. 
In the Miocene epoch there was a vast surface of land 
under a mild climate, clothed with a rich and varied vege- 
tation. This on the whole was a better age than the one 
in which we now live. The Pliocene was an important 
epoch for giving the finishing touches to the continents. 
There were extensive earth movements, ejections of 
igneous rocks, and an increase in the irregularities of the 
earth's surface. There was a continental epoch of long 
duration, elevation of lands, erosion of the surface, and 
volcanic action. In the Eocene epoch much laud in the 
western part of our continent was under the sea, there 



224 The Origin of Man 

having been a subsidence at the beginning of the period. 
There were marshes and inland seas, but in the Miocene 
the extent of the land was much greater, though large 
areas of lands were still under the sea. The Pliocene in- 
augurated what has been called a continental period, 
when the land was higher and more extensive than at 
the present. The climate was considerably warmer than 
in our day. There was a tropical climate in the far north 
where there is now a perpetual reign of ice and cold. In 
the Tertiary Period the continents have reached their 
complete forms, and the climatic conditions are at their 
best. 

III. 

One of the most noteworthy periods of the earth's 
history was the Quaternary. The development of the 
continents had been up to this period by subsidence and 
re-elevation of the lands, and the dry land by these agen- 
cies had reached a high state of development extending 
over a larger area than now exists. The earth was now 
completed, and the forces that produced the earth are not 
so prominent in its further development. These agencies 
did not cease to operate, for they may have been the lead- 
ing factors in the ice age in producing the changes in 
the continents that caused the glaciers to move forward 
and carry on their work of devastation. But the conti- 
nents had reached their highest perfection in the preced- 
ing period, and the future changes are in the earth's sur- 
face rather than in the disruption of its strata and the up- 
heaval of the crust into extensive folds. It is difficult to 
estimate the number of changes that took place in the 



Formation of the Earth 225 

earth in this latter period. But there were at least two 
great glacier epochs, one of which was more extensive 
than the other. 

For some reason the climate of the earth underwent a 
sudden change. The cold kept increasing till it reached 
its maximum in the glacier period. There was perhaps at 
this time a subsidence of great extent during which the 
lands were sunk beneath the waters of a cold sea. The 
continental plateaus remained under the icy waters doubt- 
less for a long time. At length there came a change, the 
lands were again uplifted, and the glaciers began to move 
across the continents, ploughing up the ground and cut- 
ting into the lands, making the valleys and carrying away 
huge boulders. The sliding movements of incalculable 
tons of ice ground the rock surfaces away, breaking off 
huge boulders from the extending cliffs of rocks, carrying 
large quantities of pebbles and sand, and strewing them 
along their course. For long years the mighty mass 
moved forward, mowing down forests, cutting terraces 
out of the hillsides, and carrying immense loads of dirt 
and stone onward. 

A subsidence followed and vast regions of the north- 
ern parts of the continents were covered with water. The 
streams began to flow towards the sea, carrying down 
with them a freight of sediment, which had been borne 
down by the glaciers, and strewing it over the lands that 
had not been visited by the glaciers. Much that the land 
had gained by its numerous revolutions was apparently 
lost. But this deep subsidence was not of long continu- 
ance. The continents rose again from their deep sea 
burial. But pauses of great length were made in the 
resurrection of the continents, and waters stood hundreds 
15 



226 The Origin of Man 

of feet deep where populous cities now stand. As the 
lands rose out of the waters they were greatly and rapidly 
modified by the erosion caused by the rains and streams. 
The erosion caused by these agencies was enormous in 
comparison with anything we now experience. The rain- 
fall was excessive and the volume of water in the streams 
very great, and the facilities for cutting channels in the 
valleys filled with mud was unprecedented. 

Probably a cold wintry climate was introduced at the 
close of the Pleistocene epoch along with a gradual subsi- 
dence of the land. This Glacial period was one of the 
most dismal of the epochs of the earth's development, 
but it is difficult to locate the exact time of its occurrence. 
At this time much of the low lands of the continents was 
submerged, and the mountains were covered with snow 
and ice. The British Islands, Northwestern Europe, and 
a part of Asia were under fields of ice. This was one 
of the most destructive and sweeping catastrophes in the 
earth's history. The glaciers of this epoch have left their 
marks on hill and mountain sides, and left their tonnage 
of rocks and boulders, sand and gravel, deposited exten- 
sively over the more temperate latitudes. And that these 
changes from a warm tropical climate to the extreme cold, 
which produced glaciation, came with great suddenness, 
is shown beyond a doubt by the fact that the large mam- 
mals such as the mammoth, were destroyed without hav- 
ing had time to migrate to a warmer climate. These ani- 
mals are found in the frozen ice and ground with food 
undigested in their stomachs, proving conclusively that 
the change came from a warm climate to a cold Arctic 
climate with extreme suddenness. 



Formation of the Earth 227 

The early recent epoch was a time of great conti- 
nental elevation in which the lands spread themselves 
widely over the now submerged margins of the sea basins. 
The British Islands were connected with Ireland and the 
continent. And possibly the New World was connected 
with the Old World by a lost continent, or by a series of 
islands that occupied the shallow portions of the Atlantic. 
Connected with this elevation of the continents out of the 
sea was a great change of climate. The cold passed away, 
and a milder climate overspread the Northern hemisphere. 
The newly raised lands became clothed with a rich vege- 
tation, and were occupied by gigantic quadrupeds. But 
the lands underwent another subsidence before reaching 
their present limits. The earth has been subjected to a 
revolutionary change, comparatively speaking, not very 
far back in its history. This revolution engulfed portions 
of the dry land, and elevated parts of the ocean beds con- 
verting them into dry land. And when this revolution 
was ended our present continents stood forth, practically, 
in their existing proportions. 

And when we study the surface of the earth as it is at 
the present time, it is manifest that the continents have 
not reached their present form and extent by any gradual 
process of development. The continents rise gradually 
on one side from the shore of the seas toward the interior 
to a line of highest elevation of the lands. In all of the 
continents the line of greatest elevation is placed out of 
the center on one of the sides at an unequal distance from 
the shores of the ocean. From this fact we have two 
slopes of unequal length from the sea shores. In the Old 
World the long slopes are turned toward the north, and 



228 The Origin of Man 

the short slopes toward the south. In the New World the 
long slopes are toward the east, and the short, abrupt 
slopes toward the west. 

The earth's surface is scarcely anywhere a gradual 
transition from plain to mountain, but almost everywhere 
it is sudden and abrupt. There are lofty mountains, 
table-lands, extensive plains, and low valleys which mark 
the surface of the earth. Continents differ in extent, in 
forms of contour, in structure, and in direction. A con- 
tinent is lifted here into the frozen regions of the Arctics, 
and is sunken there into the desert's burning sands. The 
mountains did not begin as mole hills and gradually 
evolve into their present form. These mountain peaks 
that tower up toward the clouds, kissing the sky, did not 
reach their present lofty heights by gradual development 
through endless years of time, but were thrown up by 
some mighty convulsion of the earth. The most ancient 
chains of mountains are the least elevated, while the more 
recent mountains are of colossal height. And this is not 
because the more ancient mountains have given their soil 
to enrich the valleys, though some of the mountains are 
not as high by thousands of feet as they once were, but 
because the recent mountains were thrown up higher 
when they were first formed. 

The southern points of all the continents are high and 
rocky, and seem to be the extremities of mountain belts, 
which come from the far interior of the continents, and 
suddenly break off abruptly at the shore of the sea. South 
America terminates in the rocky precipices of Cape Horn. 
Africa ends with the cape of Good Hope with its high 
plateaus, which rise to a height of several thousand feet 
above the level of the ocean. Asia ends with the penin- 



Formation of the Earth 229 

sula of Deccan, which sends out the chain of Ghats, form- 
ing the high rocks of Cape Comorin. Australia cul- 
minates abruptly at Cape Southeast, on the Island of Tas- 
mania.* 

Large islands, or groups of islands, are situated on 
the east of the southern point of the continents. And 
there is a deep bend in their western side toward their 
interior. These conditions are probably due to some 
great inundation coming from the southwest, and dash- 
ing against the side and point of the continents, w T hich 
scooped out these great bends, swept off the movable ma- 
terial from the southern end, and left nothing standing 
except the rocky points that form the skeleton of the con- 
tinents. As this great inundation dashed in all its fury 
against the sides of the continents, the materials compos- 
ing the continents were ground away, and the rocky 
points where the mountain chains, coming from the in- 
terior, extend, are left exposed. The islands on the east 
of these points were probably formed by the accumula- 
tions of the ruins of the continents, or are the parts of 
the continents that remained after the catastrophe was 
over, having been protected by the jutting points of the 
continents from complete destruction. 

Each of the continents has undergone great physical 
changes. The infinitely diversified conditions of the 
earth's surface are everywhere manifest. A glimpse of 
the continents of North and of South America reveals 
the most diversified conditions of surface and contour. 
There abound torrid (list rids, arid deserts, lofty moun- 
tain peaks, grassy plains, low marshes, extensive forests, 



*The Earth and Man.— Guyot. 



230 The Origin of Man 

deep lakes, and broad rivers, under almost every tem- 
perature. Everywhere on the continent of Europe the 
surface is cut in almost every direction by mountain chains 
intercepting each other. The configurations are diversi- 
fied to such an extent that the observer is convinced that 
these diversified conditions have come about by earth- 
quake throes and mighty upheavals of the surface by the 
pent-up forces within the interior bursting forth and 
venting their rage on the earth. The high regions of 
Asia, mountains and plateaus, cover five-sevenths of its 
surface. And in America, the long and lofty barriers of 
the Rocky Mountains and the Andes, extend for thou- 
sands of miles along the western coasts of the continents, 
while on the eastern half of these continents vast plains 
are interspersed with mountain ranges of less elevation. 
Africa, south of the Sahara desert, appears to be only 
an enormous pile of uplifted table-lands. The high re- 
gions cover two-thirds of this continent. The channel 
of the Congo river has been found by soundings to ex- 
tend for over a hundred miles into the ocean, showing 
that the continent has been recently submerged, and that 
it is of much less extent now than it was in the recent 
past. There have been earth movements on a colossal 
scale in this continent, with long lapses of time between 
them. There have been discovered here the loftiest moun- 
tains, the greatest and deepest lakes, the highest plateaus, 
and a marked corrugation of the earth's surface in parallel 
lines of hills, ridges, and valleys. Portions of the lands 
have subsided forming profound chasms several thou- 
sands of feet in depth which have filled with water. As 
an example of the profound depth of these chasms, it has 
been ascertained that the bottom of Lake Nyassa is seven 



Formation of the Earth 231 

hundred and seventy-eight feet below sea-level, while the 
surface of the lake is fifteen hundred feet above the level 
of the sea. This line of subsidences and upheavals ex- 
tends for a distance of fifteen hundred miles across the 
continent. And, overlooking this singular line of lakes, 
there are piled up the loftiest mountains, some of them ex- 
tending almost three miles in vertical height above the 
lake abreast of them. These mighty fissures in the rocks 
and gigantic mountain peaks were formed by some stu- 
pendous upheaval of the surface of the earth in geolog- 
ical ages past. 

IV. 

If the nebular hypothesis of La Place is true, and it 
probably is, it is in perfect harmony with the theory of 
revolution. Instead of there being one universal law in 
nature, as is commonly held, we have called attention to 
the fact that there are three great laws, revolution, evolu- 
tion, and degeneration, which operate in nature. And 
all three of these laws were employed in the development 
of the earth from nebula. 

Granting the nebula, the motion, and gravitation, the 
bodies of the solar system may be accounted for by this 
hypothesis. And it may be possible for the planets after 
they had been thrown off in this way to persevere in their 
orbits by means of the laws of gravitation and motion, 
but it is impossible for them to have originated in this 
way. There must have been some power back of the 
nebula, the gravitation, and the motion, to account for 
their existence. But granting the truth of the nebular 
hypothesis, with a cause back of gravitation, motion, and 



232 The Origin of Man 

nebula, there could be no better illustration of the opera- 
tion of these three laws of nature. 

The fiery nebulous matter, as it revolves in space, 
constantly loses its heat, and as a result of this loss of 
heat there is a contraction of the mass and an increase in 
the speed of the rotation. When the velocity has reached 
an acceleration sufficient to overcome the force of gravity, 
a ring is thrown off by revolution. The ring continues 
to rotate around the parent mass until the oscillations to 
which it is subjected causes a break, and the materials are 
gathered into a gaseous globe. And this same process 
is repeated over and over until our solar system is pro- 
duced. The evolutionists see in the nebular hypothesis 
nothing but the operations of the law of evolution. But 
there is not only development here, but degeneration and 
revolution. And the process of revolution by which these 
rings are thrown off from the parent mass and disrupted 
is certainly as important to the theory, as the gradual 
development of the speed of rotation until the centrifugal 
force overcomes gravitation. In refrigeration there is 
degeneration, in the acceleration of motion there is evo- 
lution, and in the sudden throwing off of the rings and 
their disruption, there is revolution. 

Geologists have deciphered with remarkable fidelity 
the records of the wonderful history of the earth's de- 
velopment. And even a superficial study of the facts set 
forth by geologists must convince the candid reader that 
the earth has not reached its present state of development 
by the slow degrees of change that the theory of evolu- 
tion involves, but he must be convinced that there are 
other laws of equal if not greater importance, which 



Formation of the Earth 233 

have been employed in producing changes in natural 
phenomena. 

Cycles of repose and activity have succeeded each 
other in the formation of the earth. These have been of 
different lengths, some have been far-reaching in extent, 
and others have been less extensive. But it is plain that 
periods of depression and upheaval have been common 
to all the continental masses, and that they have suc- 
ceeded each other at somewhat regular intervals. But 
beyond and above these epochs there is another grade of 
geological revolutions which are marked not merely by 
gradual elevation and depression of the continental areas, 
but by vast crumblings of the earth's crust and far-reach- 
ing changes of level. There is abundant evidence of such 
mighty breakings up, twistings, contortions, and up- 
heavals of the earth's crust between the Archaean and 
the Algonkin, and between the Algonkin and the Paleo- 
zoic, between the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic, and be- 
tween the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic. These were not 
all of equal magnitude, but they were distinct enough, 
even in the beginning, to mark the distinction between 
these eras and the lesser periods of change. 

The immediate cause that produced these changes 
seems to have been the gradual bending of the earth's 
crust, producing" the distinct periods, and the sudden 
breaking of the crust, causing the greater changes that 
mark the distinct eras in the history of the earth. The 
probable cause of these bendings and breakings of the 
crust was the enveloping shell becoming too large for the 
shrinking nucleus. The inner support being removed in 
this way the crust would bend and finally break tow aid 



234 The Origin of Man 

the center. A bending or a breaking of the crust in one 
part of the earth would cause an upheaval in some other 
part. And for this reason there would be periods of com- 
parative quiet, followed by periods of rapid change. Dur- 
ing these periods of comparative quiet the forces were 
accumulating that later on produced the sudden changes. 
And usually the change is preceded by deterioration and 
subsidence, rather than by progressive change. The 
growth of the lands after each revolution is the result of 
the erosion of the hills and mountains which is carried 
down by the streams. The sediments accumulated at the 
bottoms of the oceans until their weight with that of the 
water caused another break in the crust with its corre- 
sponding upheaval. These movements must have de- 
pended on the slow contraction of the earth's crust, due to 
the gradual cooling of the interior, but the effects would 
not manifest themselves owing to the strength and re- 
sisting power of the crust except at great intervals of 
time. These sudden cataclysms were, it seems, the re- 
sult of the gradual accumulation of natural forces. But 
these natural forces did not accumulate by a process of 
evolution, on the contrary, they were the result of de- 
generation. There was a shrinking of the interior nu- 
cleus on account of refrigeration, and erosion was very 
rapid, so that sediments in vast abundance were carried 
into the sea. And after a long period of time the shell be- 
ing unsupported, and the accumulated sediments weighing 
it down, at last it breaks, and there is a fresh upheaval of 
the lands. In this way every new revolution is new prog- 
ress, one elevation is added to another, one surface after 
another emerges from the waters to increase the dry land. 
Cyclic changes occur in the history of the formation of 



Formation of the Earth 235 

the earth, but with many a temporary lapse and ebb. The 
continents sink and become ocean beds, and ocean beds 
are lifted and become continents, and thus the earth by 
subsidences and upheavals, has attained its present form. 

The formation of the earth in phehistoric times is 
marked off into periods and eras by physical revolutions, 
much in the same way that advance in civilization is 
marked off by its revolutions in historical times. The 
subdivisions of geological time are marked by general 
and local changes, but the great eras are distinguished 
by what may be called universal revolutions. Unmistak- 
able evidence is found of long-continued periods of phys- 
ical quiescence which were followed by upheavals and 
foldings of the earth's crust. The causes, long and 
quietly operating, prepare for changes, sudden and of vast 
extent. Geological time has consisted of alternations of 
long periods of repose, slow subsidence, followed by sud- 
den upheaval. And these have followed each other some- 
what in the order of succession. Repose has been fol- 
lowed by revolution, and revolution by repose. The 
formation of the earth has not been by an instantaneous 
process, but has extended through ages of vast duration. 
Every previous stratum in the earth's formation was used 
as a support for the next. And each succeeding story of 
the earth was built on the one previously prepared for it. 

The changes by which the earth has been developed 
have been on a vast scale, and have occurred, geologically 
speaking, with very great suddenness. The physical 
revolutions that mark the geological history of the earth 
were undoubtedly more sudden and far-reaching- than 
geologists have been willing to admit. Recent physical 
changes give us an idea of the rapidity of the changes 



236 The Origin of Man 

in the face of nature in prehistoric times. In 1868 there 
was a sudden upheaval of the earth on the coast of Peru. 
Mountains sank into valleys, and valleys were lifted up 
into mountains in a moment of time. And a great tidal 
wave carried a ship of the United States navy about thir- 
teen hundred feet above high water mark, where it had 
to be abandoned. And the recent eruption of Mount 
Pelee furnishes us an illustration of the far-reaching re- 
sults of these changes. Millions of tons of lava dust fell 
on the surrounding islands during the eruption. It is esti- 
mated that fifty thousand tons of lava dust fell daily on 
the island of Jamaica. Soundings have revealed the fact 
that the ocean bottom near the island of Martinique has 
sunk down many hundreds of feet since the volcano be- 
came active. If such sudden and far-reaching changes take 
place when the earth has reached its present stability, what 
vast changes must have occurred in the earlier history of 
the earth? And they unquestionably took place with a 
suddenness that can not be conceived by us at the present 
day. 

The successive stages of the earth's history, as dis- 
closed by the science of geology, show that there has not 
been the uniformity in the formation of the earth that the 
theory of evolution requires. Evolutionists seem to be 
unable to recognize any changes in nature, but those that 
have extended through endless years of time, and have 
been by slow degrees of advance. The slow process of 
sedimentation, the abrupt subsidence, and the sudden up- 
heaval of the continents, should teach them that when 
the old order of things has served its purpose that it passes 
away, and that the new and distinct order takes its place 
by revolution. 



Formation of the Earth 237 

The study of the geological formations of the strata 
of the earth and the diversified condition of its surface 
renders the order of creation, as set forth by Moses, as 
substantially correct. The six geological eras correspond 
very closely with the six creative ages. How came the 
author of Genesis to know the order of the formation of 
the earth, a knowledge which the scientists have learned 
only in the last century? If he obtained this knowledge 
from the Egyptians, it indicates an advance in scientific 
pursuits among them to which we have only recently at- 
tained. If he obtained this knowledge by divine inspira- 
tion, it would compel us to admit the truth of the theory 
of special creation. The only real difference between the 
position of the geologists and that of the author of Gene- 
sis is that they attribute these vast changes that mark 
off the geological eras to natural causes, while he ascribes 
them to divine intervention. But it is not inconsistent 
with divine creation that secondary causes should be em- 
ployed in the formation of the earth. 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
SPECIES 



239 



"In most types we find a great number of kinds in their earlier 
geological history, and they dwindle rather than increase as they go 
onward. This fact, established in so many cases as to constitute 
an actual law of palaeontology, is altogether independent of the 
alleged imperfection of the record. Objections of this kind appear 
to be fatal to the Darwinian idea of slow modifications, proceeding 
throughout geological periods, and to throw us back on a doctrine 
of sudden appearance of new forms, occurring at certain portions of 
geological time rather than at others, and in the earlier history of 
animal and vegetable types, rather than in those more recent." — 
Dawson. 

"Uniformity is not, as some have maintained, the law of evolu- 
tion. While we may ^ot accept the old cataclysmic theory of prog- 
ress, yet we must recognize the fact that long periods of compar- 
atively slight change have been followed by times of disturbance and 
far-reaching changes. Forces that had long been gathering broke 
over barriers of resistance and inaugurated a new era of progress ; 
or to put it a little diiTerently, progress went quietly on until it was 
possible for new and higher forces to come in, and give a new im- 
pulse and energy to the work." — Conley. 

"We have descended to the minutest organisms of animal cre- 
ation, whether manifest in the depths of the ocean or on the surface 
of our globe, and to delicate vegetable germs which clothe the naked 
declivity of the ice-crowned mountain summit, and here we have been 
able to arrange these phenomena according to partially known laws ; 
but other laws of a more mysterious nature rule the higher spheres of 
the organic world, in which is comprised the human species in all 
its varied conformation, its creative intellectual power, and languages 
to which it has given existence. A physical delineation of nature 
terminates at the point where the sphere of intellect begins, and a new 
world of mind is open to our view." — Humboldt. 



240 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIES 

T N the geological history of the earth the species can be 
traced back through successive dynasties, emerging 
in long processions from the depths of a primitive an- 
tiquity. The fossil remains of the species are found im- 
bedded in the successive geological strata, beginning with 
the fire rocks and ending in the soil on which we dwell. 
In tracing the record of the earth's life, commencing at 
the surface, as we examine the older formations, we grad- 
ually lose sight of the existing species, and discover the 
remains of others that once inhabited the earth. These 
species, as we examine older formations in their turn, 
disappear, and were preceded by others, which flourish 
for a time, then perish, and are preceded by still other 
species. We learn in this way from the study of the 
geological records that the whole living population of 
the earth has changed many times prior to the present 
order of things. Geology assigns to their respective ages 
all the rocks of the earth's crust, and the remains of ani- 
mal life found in these strata furnish us the history of 
the successive species that once flourished on the earth at 
the time that these strata were being formed. 

In tracing the species back toward their origin, we 
fail to find any evidence that they were the result of the 
process of evolution, but, on the contrary, they appear at 
once in their most perfect state, as a rule, and continue 
until they are forced off the stage of existence to give 
16 241 



242 The Origin of Man 

place to other and higher creatures. We trace briefly the 
history of the development of the species that the reader 
himself may judge by what process they were introduced. 
The introduction of life on the earth is shrouded in 
mystery. Vegetable life, of course, preceded animal life, 
and made possible this higher type of life by furnishing 
food for living creatures. But we are much more anx- 
ious to know how animal life originated, than to learn 
how plant life came into existence. It is a difficult matter, 
however, to determine what the first animal form was 
like that inhabited the earth. In the oldest strata there are 
beds of crystalline limestone, and limestone is usually 
formed in the deep seas through the agencies of living 
creatures. The first animal form must have been some soft 
fragile, calcareous secreting creature, that was the active 
agent in the formation of these beds of limestone. Foram- 
inifera are supposed to have been represented in these 
primitive seas by Eozoon. The remains of this animal 
form have been found in the Laurentian rocks. Assum- 
ing that Eozoon was a living animal, as in all probability 
it was, life was ushered into existence as a sort of ani- 
mated jelly. If the form found in these ancient rocks is 
the skeleton of an animal, it is larger and more highly or- 
ganized than any of its successors. It is a gigantic repre- 
sentative of one of the lowest forms of animal life. The 
Eozoon was large and uncouth in appearance, but it was 
the greatest and noblest of its class both in form and in 
structure. This animal lived in the deep sea solitude 
where it secreted calcareous matter, and built up the 
Laurentian limestone beds. These animals all perished in 
their deep sea fastnesses, and not a single individual sur- 
vived. 



Development of the Species 243 



1. 

There is a vast lapse of time in which no trace of 
life can be found between the period in which the Lauren- 
tian rocks were formed by the secretions of the Eozoon, 
and the Cambrian period, where the first remains of ani- 
mal life are found that are undisputed. In the Cambrian 
period we discover the remains of living forms, and these 
appear abruptly without any lower forms having pre- 
ceded them. The oldest and lowest assemblage of fossils, 
of which we have certain knowledge, is found in the 
strata of this period. According to the hypothesis of 
evolution these species should be the simplest possible 
organisms, structureless, and formless, but in fact they 
are as highly organized as Trilobites and Branchiopods. 
At the very beginning of animal life on the earth there is 
a high rank and a great variety of types. 

Trilobites appear in vast numbers in the Cambrian 
period. There was a preponderance of them in the ear- 
liest fauna, and hundreds of species flourished in the Cam- 
brian seas. They were the monarchs of the seas. Trilo- 
bites appear suddenly in the geological records. Numer- 
ous species of them came into existence suddenly at the 
dawn of the period, having no forerunners in earlier 
times. We look for intermediate generic forms, which on 
the derivative hypothesis must have existed, but we look- 
in vain, for not a single intermediate form can be found. 

The headquarters of life in the Paleozoic era was in 
the sea, and the waters literally teemed with the numerous 
forms of life. The first appearance of life was not, as 
we would naturally suppose, in some low forms, but in 



244 The Origin of Man 

the highly developed Trilobites, which appear in hundreds 
of varieties, and with eyes composed of many facets. 
There were among these early Trilobites some of the 
largest in size, being nearly two feet long, and some of 
the smallest. There were some with numerous joints, 
and others among them with few joints. There were 
some with high ornamentation, and others without any 
ornamentation. The eye of the Trilobite was a curious 
compound, with numerous lenses similar in construction 
to that of the common spider. Their eyes were fitted for 
the same conditions with respect to light with those of 
existing animals of the same class. Their eyes were fully 
developed and perfect. These animals continued from 
the Cambrian in greatly increasing numbers through suc- 
ceedings periods, but gradually decreased in numbers, 
and finally perished at the close of the Paleozoic era with- 
out leaving any descendants. 

The Branchiopods were the most important creatures 
with shells that appeared in the Cambrian period. They 
appeared suddenly in great numbers, perfection of form, 
and in variety of species. They soon multiplied to many 
hundreds of species, and continued to be a great host in 
the seas of the Paleozoic era. In the Lower Silurian 
period they became exceedingly abundant, the waters of 
the sea fairly teemed with them. They reached a high 
state of perfection in the Paleozoic era, and are second 
only to the Trilobites in numbers and importance. And 
some species of them have even survived to the present 
time with comparatively little change. 

The corals had their birth in the Cambrian period, 
attained their perfection in the Silurian, and continue in 
greatest numbers to the present day. 



Development of the Species 245 

Cephalopods appeared simultaneously in almost all 
the Silurian formations. They were of different sizes and 
shapes. Some had the diameter of one's finger and were 
only a few inches in length, while others were a number 
of inches in diameter, and several feet in length. Some 
were coiled, some were curved, but the vast majority 
were straight. They compare in size to animals in the 
modern seas. Other mollusks, bivalves, univalves, and 
chambered shells appeared in great numbers in the Lower 
Silurian times. 

The Crinoids had their origin, attained their perfec- 
tion, and reached their greatest numbers in the Silurian. 
And they continue in a somewhat modified form in the 
deep seas of our day. 

There was decline and extinction in the Upper Silu- 
rian, with the introduction of new species upon the scene. 
There were no abrupt and striking introductions or ex- 
tinctions as there afterward occurred at the close of the 
old era and the beginning of the new, but the law of de- 
velopment was illustrated by the unfolding of some spe- 
cies, and the law of degeneration by the decline and ex- 
tinction of others. 

Toward the close of the Upper Silurian period we 
find a new thing in the earth, vertebrate animals repre- 
sented by several species of primitive fishes. The Ga- 
noids and Placoderms are the earliest examples of fishes. 
They appeared at once in the perfection of their forms, 
but not as high in the scale of being as later fishes. They 
had no ancestral forms in the older strata from which 
they could have descended, but appeared at once as the 
monarchs of their class. They built their empire on the 
ruins of the mollusks. The introduction of fishes clad 



246 The Origin of Man 

in coats of mail were the first and lowest forms of verte- 
brate existence. There are no simpler forms of fishes 
than the Ganoids, which came in as the forerunners of the 
dynasty of vertebrates. Their sudden appearance seems 
out of place with their surroundings among the repre- 
sentatives of invertebrate life. But they are prophetic of 
the long and varied reign of vertebrate life, which cul- 
minated in man himself. 

The advance movement in the Devonian period was 
in the number and variety of its fishes. They increased 
greatly in numbers and variety during this period. There 
swarmed great shoals of fishes of many different species, 
and some of them of remarkable organization. Some of 
them were of great size, the length of the greatest being 
as much as twenty feet. Every new type that was intro- 
duced rapidly attained its maximum of development in 
magnitude and variety of forms. They then retrograded, 
were exterminated, or remained stationary through sub- 
sequent ages. There is no evidence that the fishes of the 
Carboniferous period were transmuted into the reptiles 
of the following era. 

The Permian and the Triassic are times of transition, 
when old dynasties and races passed away, and were re- 
placed by new and more vigorous successors founding 
new empires and introducing new modes of life. The 
Permian period seems to have been intended to blot out 
old forms of life, as an arrangement that had been tried 
and served its end, preparatory to a new beginning in 
the succeeding age. The life of the Paleozoic era largely 
terminated with the Permian period. The old species 
were swept off the stage of existence, and were replaced 
in the succeeding period by more specialized groups. 



Development of the Species 247 

Very few life forms that are found in this period are 
found in the Mesozoic era. 

The Mesozoic was peculiarly the age of reptiles. In 
that era they reached their climax in numbers, perfection 
of form, and magnitude of species. The reptiles in this 
age ruled in earth, and air, and sea. There were reptiles 
in these times gigantic in size, called Dinosaurs, that 
were of a high organization and ruled as a dominant type. 
They are said to be by far the largest animals of all time, 
in length of body and in bulk. In these reptiles we have 
immense size, great variety of structure, with a low grade 
of intelligence. The position of these reptiles was near, 
if not at the head of their class, but they had not been 
preceded by all the lower order of reptiles. The serpents, 
which are much lower in the scale of being, did not make 
their appearance until the Cenozoic era. The reptiles 
lacked stability, hence they dwindled and perished with 
the era to make room for higher and nobler types. As 
these reptilian tyrants were destroyed and disappeared, 
they were replaced by land and sea animals. No geolog- 
ical change is more striking than the sudden disappear- 
ance of the reptiles at the close of the Mesozoic era. 

In the Jurassic period, Ammonites appeared in great 
numbers of species and in variety of ornamentation. 
Hundreds of species are found, and some of them arc 
of large size, being in some cases two and three feet in 
diameter. This sudden appearance and high state of per- 
fection was followed by rapid decline, for they all disap- 
peared with the close of the Cretaceous period. 

There appeared a few mammals with the reptilian 
lords of the Mesozoic era as the precursors oi the coming 
age. This small beginning of mammals in the Mesozoic 



248 The Origin of Man 

was prophetic of their complete dominion in a later age. 
When the monsters of the age disappeared, these weaker 
and higher animals took their place. They were marsu- 
pials, not the highest nor the lowest of mammals. Rep- 
resentatives of them still exist, but they have made little 
advance. And according to the hypothesis of evolution 
they have been a failure. At the beginning of the Ceno- 
zoic era, terrestrial mammals of a gigantic size and high 
organization held dominion over the earth. As the Meso- 
zoic had been the age of great reptiles, the Tertiary be- 
came the age of gigantic mammals. And the great mam- 
mals appeared with the same degree of suddenness that 
characterized the disappearance of the reptilian monsters. 
One of those revolutions in nature ushered in the closing 
stages of Mesozoic time. The conditions of life were 
changed, all the distinctive types of this age dropped out 
of existence, and mammals assumed the reins of empire. 

In the beginning of the Cenozoic era we meet with a 
group of mammals, of which few representatives have 
survived to the present. During the Eocene epoch they 
increase in numbers and size. In the Miocene are found 
the perfection of the noblest forms of mammals. In this 
epoch there are found especially great land animals. But 
the Pliocene shows the beginning of the decadence of 
these great mammals. The climate became colder, the 
conditions more unfavorable, and the large mammals 
gave place to smaller. And many of these animal species 
were overthrown without leaving any successors. 

The life in the sea in the Cenozoic was approaching 
that of the present day, as the older species disappeared, 
and the new species took their place. The land species 
became extinct sooner than the marine, as they did not 



Development of the Species 249 

have as perfect an environment, and were in greater dan- 
ger from sudden changes of climate and revolutions lim- 
iting the extent of the land. On the land, mountain bar- 
riers were raised up shutting off migration, and the cli- 
mate was revolutionized, overtaking the animals with 
intense cold without giving them a chance to escape to a 
warmer climate. And with these early animals great 
glacieration came on, while the changes in the sea were 
wrought more slowly, and there was a much better chance 
for migration. This explains why the invertebrates that 
inhabited the sea survived to later times, while the mam- 
mals changed from epoch to epoch, and few, if any of 
them, survived Tertiary time. 

There are no human remains that as yet have been 
generally accepted as belonging to the Cenozoic era. 
There have been found some remains of man among the 
fossils of this age, which would seem to establish the fact 
that he lived on the earth in the closing epoch of this era, 
but scientists have not been willing to accept these dis- 
coveries as conclusive proof of the existence of man at 
this early date. It may be that the bearing of such an 
admission on the hypothesis of evolution has uncon- 
sciously biased their judgment. On the Ashley River, in 
South Carolina, the remains of man are found mingled 
with those of the swine, the horse, the mastodon, and ex- 
tinct gigantic lizards. The fossil remains of man, found 
with those of extinct animals that flourished in the Ceno- 
zoic, or even earlier, indicate that man had his advent on 
earth at a much earlier date than has usually been as- 
signed. 

The mammillian species of the early Quaternary are 
distinct from those of the preceding period. There was a 



250 The Origin of Man 

decadence of land animals, the large mammals gave place 
to the smaller, and the animals of modern times made 
their appearance. The animals of the period were much 
larger and more abundant than their descendants of the 
present age. Elephants of great size were abundant 
throughout both the old and the new world. With the 
mammals of this period, man himself appeared upon the 
scene, if he did not indeed appear in the former period. 
He stands at the head of living forms, and it is possible 
that he had his advent into the world before the apes from 
which he is supposed to have descended. It is admitted 
by all that man began as one type in a single locality, and 
that he has since become widely scattered over the earth 
by migration. 

II. 

The record of life, as we find it written in the geolog- 
ical strata, is not in harmony with the theory of evolution. 
The facts, on the contrary, are diametrically opposed to 
this hypothesis. The appearance of Eozoon lends no aid 
to the evolution of the animals of one period, by descent 
with modification, from those of a former period. It ap- 
peared suddenly in the full perfection of its powers, and 
disappeared from the stage of existence leaving no link 
of connection between it and later foraminifera. The 
foraminifera appeared at a much later period, and are 
clearly degenerated when compared with this earlier form. 
This is in violation of a fundamental law of evolution, 
that progress must be from the low to the high, from the 
simple to the complex. The theoretical law of transmuta- 
tion teaches that Eozoon ought to have been replaced by 



Development of the Species 251 

higher types of the same organization. But other proto- 
zoans are unknown until in the succeeding era. There are 
therefore, no animal forms revealed as the genealogical 
successors of this primitive form of life. Its existence is 
restricted to the period in which the Laurentian rocks 
were being formed. This is a fact of striking significance. 
If there ever was a period in all the geological ages favor- 
able to the propagation of an animal type, it was that in 
which the Eozoon reigned alone in the primitive ocean. 
It must have been entirely exempt from the terrible strug- 
gle for existence, that prevailed in a later age, and is sup- 
posed to have exterminated such vast numbers of the 
most powerful species. 

The fundamental principles of evolution do not per- 
mit us to imagine that this great primitive agent in build- 
ing the early limestone rocks, which was at one time in 
the possession of all the seas of the globe, could have been 
supplanted and exterminated, except by higher beings, 
better organized for carrying on the same kind of work. 
The corals, animals with the same functions, should have 
descended from and survived the Eozoon. And after the 
struggle for existence, in which the protozoans perished 
and the corals survived, the corals should have, in their 
turn, reigned supreme in the abysses of the primitive 
ocean. They should have built up calcareous masses of 
equal magnitude, at least, with those constructed by their 
progenitors. But, alas ! it is quite otherwise. There was 
a total absence of corals in the primitive seas. They do 
not appear until the following era, and not even then until 
animals of a much higher type have appeared. 

According to the doctrines of evolution, the step from 
Eozoon to corals was the first to be taken in the process 



252 The Origin of Man 

of development. But following this primitive form there 
was an immense gap in which there is no evidence of life 
whatever in the geological strata. The descendants of 
Eozoon ought to have flourished in all imaginable forms 
and varieties during this period. But the absence of these 
forms of life from the following period constitutes an in- 
explicable discordance between the assumptions of evolu- 
tionists and the geological facts. Corals rank next above 
protozoa, and are closely related to them in structure 
and function. And it would appear to be but a step to 
take in the path of transmutation to pass from the former 
to the latter. But there is no evidence that this step was 
ever taken. And this is entirely out of harmony with 
what we naturally expect from the teachings of evolution, 
that the corals are not found succeeding Eozoon in the 
primitive seas. There is a break at the very beginning 
of animal life that is fatal to the theory that the species 
have been gradually developed from the lowest forms to 
the highest. 

It does not matter whether evolutionists accept the 
evidence furnished for the existence of this low type of 
life at the beginning of life or not. If Eozoon was not 
the first form of animal life, the case is all the stronger 
against the hypothesis of evolution. The first forms of 
life did not, as we should expect, according to the theory 
of evolution, begin as some low fragile form, but in the 
more highly developed Trilobites. There was an abrupt 
appearance of living forms in the Cambrian period. If 
we accept this period as the one in which life began, we 
have among the first animal forms, a large preponderance 
of animals, as high in the scale of beings as Trilobites. 
Prior to the Cambrian period there has not been discov- 



Development of the Species 253 

ered a single trace of these crustaceans, but in this sys- 
tem they make their appearance in great numbers. The 
first appearance of such a vast number of Trilobites at 
this time has an aspect of suddenness in total disagree- 
ment with the theory of evolution. 

There are facts in the early geological records of a 
damaging character to the theory of evolution. In the 
Cambrian period we obtain a vast and varied accession of 
living forms, which appeared at once, as sudden and 
simultaneous productions of various kinds of animals. 
There is a succession of new forms, distinct as species, but 
not perceptibly elevated in the scale of being. In many 
cases the successive dynasties of life manifest degenera- 
tion rather than development. Among the Trilobites 
there is an inverse order required by theory. The suc- 
cessive stages of animal development are characterized by 
gradually increasing numbers of thorac segments. This 
order, according to the law of evolution, indicates that 
Trilobites with few segments occupy a position between 
those with numerous segments. Accordingly the genera 
with few segments should precede in time those with 
many, but the reverse of this is the exact fact. The 
Branchiopods appeared in great numbers and variety in 
the Cambrian. Their appearance is sudden and simul- 
taneous, in direct contradiction to theory. But nowhere 
in this period do Acephals, the class of mollusks standing 
next above Branchiopods, appear in this fauna. They 
are higher in the scale of being, but they are not found 
until much later. 

When we consider that Trilobites and Branchiopods 
underwent a gradual diminution to give place to lower 
forms, we recognize the Pact that it presents an order 



254 The Origin of Man 

diametrically opposed to that which we naturally expect, 
and which the theory of evolution requires. Evolution- 
ists attempt to explain away these facts by claiming that 
the humbler ancestors of these forms did exist in an 
earlier period, but that they have been destroyed by meta- 
morphic agencies. They contend that if we had more 
perfect records the line of descent would appear. But this 
is a begging of the question. We must take the records as 
they are, and not as we imagine they should be. It is not 
reasonable to suppose that the immediate ancestors of the 
Trilobites and Branchiopods should have perished with- 
out leaving a single trace, when other animals no more 
fragile have continued from almost that time to the pres- 
ent. These animals, had they ever existed, most cer- 
tainly would not have all perished, leaving not a single 
trace of their existence behind them. 

There are forms of life in the Silurian period which 
can not be traced back to the Cambrian, that relate to 
new forms of life, for which the unaided powers of ani- 
mals of the earlier period could not have provided. 
Cephalopods appeared suddenly and simultaneously in 
all Silurian countries. Pteropods appeared before the 
first advent of Heteropods, a lower type by the whole 
duration of the primordial fauna. This is clearly in ad- 
verse order to the requirements of the hypothesis of evo- 
lution. And the simultaneous appearance of so many 
different forms upon the horizon of the second fauna is 
irreconcilable with the theoretical laws of development 
by invisible gradations. There are no remains of living 
forms from which they could have been derived. 

Much has been made of the fact that there have ap- 
peared, from time to time, in geological history what 



Development of the Species 255 

have been called prophetic forms. These have been 
pointed out as proof of the theory of transmutation of 
the species from the lower to the higher forms. But it 
is not in accordance with the hypothesis of evolution that 
the more perfect forms of life, as in the case of fishes 
and mammals, arose in the time of more imperfect forms 
by gradual transmutation. These prophetic forms ap- 
peared suddenly, not by the survival of the fittest, for the 
unfit were in full power at the time of their advent. And 
the most of these old forms were destroyed suddenly 
some time after these new forms were introduced. To 
harmonize with the theory, the new forms should have 
had their advent as the old forms passed out of existence. 
And the gradation is also wanting which would show the 
transmutation from these prophetic forms to the higher 
forms of life. It is assumed that because these lower 
forms appear in the geological records that the higher 
types must have been developed from them. But the as- 
sumption is wholly gratuitous. There are distinct breaks 
between these prophetic forms and the higher types that 
appear in the succeeding formations that can not be 
bridged over. 

The destruction of the reptilian lords at the close of 
the Mesozoic era, contrary to theory, was not by the 
overmastery of the mammals. Their overthrow was 
due to two causes, the instability of constitution and 
change of environment. The reptiles had reached their 
highest development, which is always the forerunner of 
extinction. Degeneration had already begun its work of 
destruction, and, when the revolution came at the close 
of the era, they were swept off the stage of existence. 

Judging by the known facts as they are found in the 



256 The Origin of Man 

geological records, rather than from the hypothetical 
facts, we learn that the varied forms of animal life did 
not come into existence by gradual transition through 
infinitesimal changes from primitive forms. There is 
no real evidence of transition from one species to another. 
The fossil remains of the numerous species of past ages 
reveal the fact to us that many species were simulta- 
neously and successively introduced, but nowhere is there 
evidence of gradual transition from one species to an- 
other. There is no geological evidence to show that the 
lower species were evolved into the higher. Organisms 
do not seem to have been evolved from one another, but 
to have appeared simultaneously throughout the world. 
According to theory, the simplest and lowest forms of 
life were first, and were succeeded by higher and more 
complex types. Present living forms should be traced 
backward without a single break along genealogical lines 
to the lowest and simplest forms. The higher forms 
should grow out of the lower until the highest type of 
life is reached in man. But the geological records do 
not furnish evidence such as is required to substantiate 
the theory. All the species appear suddenly, and with- 
out explanation. The advance in the species is by sudden 
leaps, as if the impulse to life had been given by some 
power outside of and above the forms of life themselves. 
The sudden manifestation of life, under new typical 
forms appearing repeatedly in geological history in high, 
perfection of their distinguishing characters and great 
plentitude as to numbers, is entirely out of harmony with 
the theory of gradual development by infinitesimal and 
successive variations. Such a process of evolution could 
only be brought about through an infinite series of in- 



Development of the Species 257 

termediate forms. The discordances are so frequent and 
so pronounced that they violate every principle of evolu- 
tion. The history of the development of the species, as 
it is indelibly written in the rocks of the geological strata, 
fails to reveal any evidence that a series of forms have 
been evolved by slow degrees of change toward per- 
fection. 

The fact that the total number of species in their 
earlier history is greater than in the later phase of their 
life, is contrary to theory. This excess of first appear- 
ances characterizes nearly all the separate orders of ani- 
mals in their early history, as well as the aggregate. Ac- 
cording to the requirements of evolution, instead of there 
being a preponderance of numbers at the beginning, there 
should be few in numbers in their early history, and these 
should slowly increase until they become numerous. 

According to the doctrine of evolution the inferior 
forms ought to have predominated in numbers in the most 
ancient faunas, but the records in the rocks do not sub- 
stantiate this claim. In fact, the earlier forms were not 
simpler and lower in the scale of being than the later. 
It is assumed that evolution began with a few lowly types, 
and that these gradually developed into higher types of 
life. But, on the contrary, many of the species were in- 
troduced under higher organized forms than they have 
since shown. In some instances the more complex forms 
were introduced first, and have since degenerated into 
simpler forms. The species have not invariably begun 
with the highest forms, though this is not infrequently 
the case, but never do they begin with the lowest type as 
the theory o{ evolution requires. The earliest repre- 
sentatives o\ a speeies are often neither the highest nor 
17 



258 The Origin of Man 

the lowest members, but frequently a type intermediate, 
neither the highest nor the lowest. None of the species 
have ever been introduced at their lowest, but many have 
come on the stage of action at their best. The doctrine 
of evolution finds no support where it should find the 
strongest support. 

The facts that we have set forth here as found in the 
geological records are admitted by evolutionists. Le 
Conte says: "The present condition of geological evi- 
dence is undoubtedly in favor of some degree of sudden- 
ness — is against infinite gradations. The evidence may 
be meager, though it seems to me that, in some cases at 
least, it is very abundant. But, whether meager or not, 
it is nearly all the evidence we have. Observe : The ques- 
tion is not, how species could have been introducced, or 
ought to have been introduced, or must have been intro- 
duced; it is a simple question of how they were intro- 
duced. It is not a question of speculative philosophy; 
it is simply a question of history. And, as a question of 
history, there is no witness upon the stand except Geology. 
In comparison with her evidence, all other evidence ought 
to be ruled out of court. Her evidence, and hers alone, 
must eventually settle the question. Now, the evidence 
of Geology, to-day, is that species seem to come in sud- 
denly and in full perfection, remain substantially un- 
changed during the term of their existence, and pass 
away in full perfection. Other species take their place 
apparently by substitution, not by transmutation."* And 
there have been no recent geological discoveries that 
change in the least the facts that are here admitted, but, 



^Religion and Science, p. 22. 



Development of the Species 259 

on the contrary, every new discovery tends to confirm 
their truth. 



III. 

The evidence that geology furnishes is not only con- 
trary to the requirements of the hypothesis of evolution, 
but is in harmony with the theory of special creation. 
The geological records point out the fact that the laws 
of nature have continued unchanged from the beginning 
of time to the present day. The laws that have operated 
to produce the changes in inanimated nature are the same 
that have been observed to operate in animated nature. 
The only real uniformitarianism in nature has been in 
the operation of her laws. There has been no uniformity 
in natural phenomena. There has been revolution, de- 
velopment, and degeneration in the realm of life as well 
as in the material world. There has been some variation 
in the operation of these laws from time to time. They 
have been more intense at times than they have at other 
times. Cycles of activity have been followed by periods 
of repose. There has been progress toward greater com- 
plexity and higher grade along with degeneration and 
extinction. The species seem to have passed successively 
under the dominion of these laws. And while under the 
dominion of one law, the others were held in check For 
the time being. The species originate, develop for a time, 
and finally perish. 

The geological records furnish e\ idence that pre- 
cludes the possibility of slow uniform change proceeding 
throughout geological time, Each successive rook forma- 
tion presents new groups of species which- have sup- 



260 The Origin of Man 

planted the old, and in turn have been supplanted by the 
new. And these new and more highly organized species 
have been introduced from time to time without the in- 
tervention of intermediate forms. No fact is more patent 
than the simultaneous introduction on earth of various 
forms of animal life. Upon the threshold of the Paleo- 
zoic era, representatives of Radiates, Mollusks, and Ar- 
ticulates burst simultaneously into multifarious being. 
They came in myriads of numbers, and swept down sud- 
denly like a mighty invading host, and spread themselves 
over the waters of the earth. These were new species, 
there is no escaping the fact. From whence they came 
no one can tell. But they were introduced suddenly as 
if they had been called into existence by divine fiat. These 
new forms appeared in the early history of the species 
rather than in the later, and in the early geological times 
rather than in the more recent. The sudden appearance 
of numerous species, new and distinct, in geological for- 
mations is a fatal objection to any theory of the transmu- 
tation of the species. 

There has been a continued series of alternate vic- 
tories and defeats of the species. In the dominion of life 
there are great impassable gulfs that lie between the great 
eras, and mark them as distinct ages in the history of the 
development of the species. Granting the existence of 
Eozoon, there is a break between the Archaean era and 
the Paleozoic ; there is a break between the Paleozoic and 
the Mesozoic ; and there is a break between the Mesozoic 
and the Cenozoic. The world's life has suddenly and al- 
most completely changed several times. Whole tribes of 
animals were swept away between these eras, and were re- 
placed by others of entirely new and distinct species. 



Development of the Species 261 

Everywhere the chain of continuity has been broken re- 
peatedly, and there have been many fresh and abrupt 
starts made. Species after species, having served their 
purpose, have degenerated and gradually dwindled away, 
or have been swept out of existence by some great cata- 
clysmic change. The extinctions of species occurred in 
every great oscillation of the continental areas. There 
is a marvelous change between each old age and the new. 
The change is so marked that the forms of life are almost 
totally unlike in the different eras. Some of the species 
reappear after these revolutions in nature, but usually in 
diminished numbers and in a degenerated form. The 
hypothesis of evolution requires that the intervals be- 
tween the kindred species be filled up by intermediate 
forms. But there are many gaps that exist in the actual 
world of life itself that come far short of meeting the re- 
quirements of the theory. And if evolutionists can not 
fill the breaks between the species themselves, how are 
they to fill up these mighty gaps in the world of life? 
If they can not bridge over the smaller breaks between 
kindred species, there is no possibility of their bridging 
these larger breaks between the geological eras. 

The introduction of new forms and the extermination 
of the old, has usually been cotemporaneous with the 
earth's revolutionary changes, the formation of moun- 
tains, and the changes of climate. These great cataclys- 
mic changes lifted the waters of the oceans up by im- 
mense perturbations and swept over the continents with 
irresistible force, destroying instantaneously the entire 
life of the eras. We find that the animal life which 
teemed in the waters of the sea in one era was buried 
beneath the debris of the convulsion that marked the 



262 The Origin of Man 

close of an old era and the advent of a new one. Scarcely 
an individual of the former species survived the catas- 
trophe. After these revolutions, in which the species 
were swept away, they were replaced by others entirely 
new and without the slightest evidence of transition. 
When the sea became quiet, the waters again teemed 
with myriads of new species. After these complete ex- 
terminations, coincident with the revolutions in the in- 
organic world, there has usually been a sudden appear- 
ance of whole groups of different animals without any 
recognized forms leading up to them, or from which they 
could possibly have been developed. These facts go to 
prove that in organic development species have always 
been suddenly introduced, and that in the animal consti- 
tution there is no innate tendency to elevation, but on the 
contrary a tendency to degeneration and extinction. 

In geological times these periods of submergence al- 
ternated with those of elevation, and gave scope for the 
introduction of new forms of life. When there was sub- 
sidence marine species were introduced, while each con- 
tinental elevation gave opportunity for the introduction 
of new species on land. Thus these physical changes that 
occurred so nearly in orderly succession were made sub- 
servient to the progress of life. Hence, it was not the 
adverse conditions of the struggle for existence, but the 
favorable conditions of scope for expansion on land and 
in the sea that made possible the development of the 
species. When the conditions became unfavorable the 
species diminished in numbers, and when they became 
adverse the species were utterly destroyed. 

If evolution were the process by which the species 
have originated, it would be necessary for the process to 



Development of the Species 263 

begin anew, and at the very bottom, at the beginning of 
each new era of the earth's history. Grant a continuous 
progressive development of the species from the lowest 
and simplest forms, and geological time is far too short 
for evolution to have produced the existing species. The 
hundred million years that evolutionists assume as the 
maximum limit of the time required to complete the pro- 
cess of development would be utterly insufficient for the 
purpose. These complete breaks in the process that have 
occurred between the eras would extend the time back 
into infinity. It would be absolutely necessary to begin 
the evolution anew after each abrupt break. And a spe- 
cial creation, or its equivalent, at the opening of each era 
in the history of life would be required. There must be 
a primordial form assumed for each fresh start in the de- 
velopment. And the evolution of the species would re- 
quire not one, but at least four hundred millions of years 
to produce the species. Geological time is insufficient for 
the species to have been developed from these primordial 
forms by infinitesimal changes. A conservative esti- 
mate of the length of time that the conditions have been 
favorable for the existence of life on the earth by the 
scientists of the present does not exceed ten million years, 
a period of time entirely too short for evolution to pro- 
duce the species. 

There is abundant evidence of a gradual process in 
nature, but the gradual development always follows the 
sudden change. The successive extinctions were wrought 
by revolutions, and following these extinctions have boon 
successive introductions of higher and more specialized 
creatures. Every stratum of the rocks that has been 
formed has been the burial place oi many generations of 



264 The Origin of Man 

these forms that have passed away to give place to new 
and higher forms. In this way the development in the 
organic world kept pace with that in the inorganic. As 
the earth was prepared for a higher order of life the old 
forms passed away, and the new at once took their place. 
Each advance in animal life was introduced just when the 
earth was fitted for it. The development of the species 
has not been by smooth, continuous flow, but rather as a 
series of great waves, each rising abruptly, flowing for 
a time on a level, then descending and flowing on a lower 
level. Lower types in the geological ages have given 
place to higher, less specialized to more specialized. The 
earth was peopled with living beings at first low in the 
scale of being which reached their highest development 
at early stages, and then became extinct. And after- 
wards higher forms took their place, and the same process 
was repeated. These series of animated existences be- 
gan, perhaps, with protozoa, and have been carried for- 
ward by successive steps through long stages of advance 
to the highest types of life. 

The ascent in life has been extremely irregular, there 
is decline and decadence, as well as development and ad- 
vance. The advance movements have been by stages. 
The process has been by sudden leaps. Each life-era 
reaches its highest development, degeneration sets in, and 
the life of the era passes away. There comes a new in- 
crement of force, and there is inaugurated a new era of 
progress. In these revolutionary changes, that have 
terminated an old era and inaugurated a new one, entire 
races have been exterminated; but when the elements 
subsided to a quiet condition the waters were peopled 
with countless multitudes of new beings exactly adapted 



Development of the Species 265 

to the changed conditions of the earth. There has been 
from the beginning a great progressive movement. 
Higher forms have been introduced from age to age, but 
there is nothing in this fact that identifies higher and 
lower forms. The higher types of life have been brought 
into existence after the lower. But the higher forms are 
what they are distinctively, and are not to be identified 
with their antecedents. Each successive condition of 
the earth is related to those that succeeded it, and to those 
that followed it as a series. But no continuous chain of 
succession in time can be found gradually blending into 
each other. The geological records are sufficiently com- 
plete, and the simultaneous entrance of the species fully 
established. While there has been progress, as a series in 
the introduction of life, there has been no uniformity in 
the process. There have been periods of rapid produc- 
tion alternated with others in which many species were 
destroyed and few were introduced. Again, large num- 
bers of species appeared at once in their most perfect 
state, and continued unchanged until they were exter- 
minated to give place to higher species. Each series of 
species, as they are successively introduced, rises higher 
than the last in numbers and perfection of form, and 
makes gradual assimilation of the general conditions of 
the earth. Geological history establishes the fact that 
the species have advanced by a series of steps from the 
early invertebrates by successive higher forms up to the 
reign of man at the head of life. The groat mistake has 
been made in calling these successive advances an evolu- 
tion, when they violate the fundamental principles o\ the 
hypothesis. 

All the evidence we have as to the mode of the origin 



266 The Origin of Man 

of the species is by sudden change in time from the less 
perfect to the more perfect. Evolutionists fail to dis- 
tinguish between the facts as they are found in the geo- 
logical records, and the hypothetical facts of the order 
required to established their theory. So far as the law of 
development has operated in bringing the species to per- 
fection, after they have been brought into existence by 
the law of revolution, there has been evolution, but this 
is not the law by which they originated. And it is not 
the law that has caused their advancement in the scale 
of being. They have advanced by distinct steps or waves, 
at widely separated periods of time as the forces of na- 
ture gathered themselves for a leap, or some power 
above nature caused the change. The evolution has been 
entirely confined to the development within the species 
themselves. But the development of the species, as they 
have taken on higher and more specialized forms, has 
been by revolution as the vital energy has been imparted 
from era to era during the geological history of the earth. 
These facts are utterly inconsistent with the hypothesis 
of evolution. 

The new and advance forms can easily be accounted 
for by special creation, but evolution can not account for 
them as they appear suddenly and simultaneously. These 
new and distinct species had their origin, not as the 
progeny of those that had gone before them, but seem- 
ingly as new and living proof of creative power. There 
has been an inflow of energy from age to age that has 
made this development of the species possible and perma- 
nent. In order to have progress there must be new force 
supplied from time to time as it is needed. When the 
old progress could go no further, then, in some miracu- 



Development of the Species 267 

lous manner, new power was supplied and a new order 
of beings was introduced. This growing complexity in 
organic forms is not inconsistent with a plan and purpose 
in nature, but is in perfect harmony with it. If the Al- 
mighty created the world in time, no one dare say that he 
could not have brought its factors successively into oper- 
ation as well as simultaneously. Special creation will 
explain all the facts connected with the manifestations of 
life, as revealed by the geological records, but these facts 
are inexplicable by the hypothesis of evolution. 



- 



MAN A REVOLUTION 

269 



"Now no state of savage life on record is more brutish than that 
at present existing among the inhabitants of Terra del Fuego. . . . 
Yet the children even of such savages, if taken very young and 
trained among civilized people, manifest natural capacity or aptitude 
for cultivation little inferior to their new companions. And, on the 
other hand, the children of civilized parents, if thrown by disaster 
among savages, have been found to acquire completely the character- 
istics of the savage. Such facts lead to the conclusion that the dif- 
ferences between savages and civilized men depend mainly on the 
differences of their educational training." — Arnott. 

"If the radiant civilization of Greece, that filled the earth with 
the 'eloquence of thought and the melody of song,' with the Republic 
of Plato and the Ethics of Aristotle, that clothed itself in the Par- 
thenon of Phidias and the Iliad of Homer, was as natural among 
the nations as the uprising of Gibraltar among the mountains, why 
is it that Gibraltar still stands as a solemn sentinel of the Ocean and 
the Sea, while the civilization of Greece is but a memory of the 
past? ... If the civilization of Rome, that reached such volume 
and force as to make her the mistress of the world, was as natural 
as the rising and falling of the tides, why is it that Rome is in ruins, 
while the tides continue to rise and fall? With no other aid than 
such as is afforded by natural law and physical force, we can not 
solve this problem. . . . We must pass from the level and range 
of soil, sky, climate, and physical conditions, to account for the fact 
that a country in one period of its history produces a Pericles, and 
in another a muddy-headed numskull ; in one age an aristocracy of 
poets, artists, statesmen, philosophers, and orators ; and in another a 
listless swarm of stupid and secular cumberers of the ground." — Lee. 



270 



MAN A REVOLUTION 

HP HE human race has a much greater antiquity than 
our forefathers supposed ; t for six thousand years 
was regarded by them as the full limit of time since the 
creation. But a vastly greater length of time than 
that has passed since the advent of man upon the earth. 
We can trace man no farther back in geological history 
than the Pliocene epoch, and it is seriously questioned 
whether he existed as early as that period. If the theory 
of special creation is true, he was created in all proba- 
bility at that time, when the earth was at her full per- 
fection, and the climate was mild and salubrious. There 
is no period in the history of the earth that corresponds 
so perfectly with the ideal conditions of the Edenic gar- 
den as the conditions in the Pliocene epoch. But if the 
hypothesis of evolution is true, man can not have orig- 
inated at such an early period, and it may be that this is 
the reason that some scientists have rejected the evidence 
of his advent in this age. Whatever may be the date 
of his earliest remains, the earliest known man was still 
man in all the essential points, and was separated from 
the lower animals by a gap as wide as that which now 
exists. 

Our knowledge of man's antiquity depends on sev- 
eral branches of science, particularly upon Geology, Arch- 
aeology, Anthropology, and Philology. These sciences 
all furnish evidence that shows that man has dwelt upon 

271 



272 The Origin of Man 

the earth for countless ages. And they reveal the fact 
that primitive man was as high in the scale of being as 
the men of the present day. Ancient man has been re- 
garded as a brutal savage, living a life scarcely removed 
from that of the lower animals. He has been represented 
as such a being as we would naturally expect to find, were 
the doctrine of evolution true. A being scarcely removed 
above the brute order. And the facts furnished by these 
sciences have been interpreted in such a way by evolu- 
tionists as to fully confirm the doctrines of the new 
philosophy. But the facts, when rightly interpreted, in- 
stead of proving that man was introduced into the world 
by a gradual process of development, indicate that he was 
introduced suddenly in the full perfection of his powers. 
The evidence furnished by these sciences, when not col- 
ored by a preconceived theory, proves that man came into 
the world with the suddenness and abruptness of a revo- 
lution. 



The geological record introduces us to primitive man, 
but gives us no definite information as to the source of 
his origin. The solution of this problem must be left to 
speculative philosophy. But even a brief review of the 
facts furnished by geological history will present to our 
mind evidence of such a nature, that the only reasonable 
inference which can be drawn from it is that man was 
introduced suddenly into the world just as we should 
expect him to appear, if the theory of special creation 
were true. The geological evidence fails to carry man 
back to a remote antiquity as a primitive savage. The 



Man a Revolution 273 

fossil remains of the earliest men that have been discov- 
ered in this country and Europe tell an entirely different 
story from that required to confirm the hypothesis of 
evolution. The people who lived in the early stone age, 
that of chipped flints, judging from the height of their 
stature, the size and shape of their skulls, and their cere- 
bral capacity, were endowed with a degree of physical 
and intellectual power that is not surpassed by the men 
of modern times. 

The earliest remains of primitive men are found in 
caves and under cliffs of rocks, where they have taken 
shelter from the elements. The greatest number of fossil 
remains of primitive men are found in the caves of 
France and Belgium. 

The celebrated Engis skull, discovered in one of the 
caves of Belgium, is admitted to be of high and human 
character. It is one of the oldest skulls, and is believed 
to have belonged to a contemporary of the mammoth. 
From its shape and size it might have belonged to an in- 
dividual of one of the present races of men. 

The skull of the old man of Cro-magnon, that was 
found in Perigord, France, is among the oldest skulls. 
The man to whom it belonged is known to have been 
old from the fact that the teeth are worn down to the 
sockets by usage, without being lost. This old man was 
nearly six feet tall, large-boned, and possessed a large, 
well-formed skull. The skull is very long, and at the 
same time has great breadth. The frontal region of the 
skull is well developed, and the brain capacity Is greater 
than that of modern men. Professor Broca says of this 
skull: "The great volume of the brain, the development 
of the frontal region, the line elliptical profile of the an- 
18 



274 The Origin of Man 

terior portion of the skull, and the, orthognathous form of 
the upper facial region, are incontestably evidences of 
superiority, which are met with only in civilized races. 
On the other hand, the great breadth of face, the alveolar 
prognathism, the enormous development of the ascend- 
ing ramus of the lower jaw, the extent and roughness 
of the muscular insertions, especially of the masticatory 
muscles, give rise to the idea of a violent and brutal 
race."* This skull, as far as size and shape are con- 
cerned, might have belonged to a modern statesman or to 
an ancient philosopher of renown. There is the highest 
and finest formation with great brain capacity. And 
this skull belongs to the earliest stone age, when man 
was supposed to have been a lower being than in the suc- 
ceeding stone age, that of polished stone. 

The skeletons found at Mentone are of the same high 
character as the remains discovered at Cro-magnon. 
These are among the oldest human remains, and are sur- 
prisingly similar to those of the men of modern times. 
The skull of the most perfect skeleton is of equal capacity 
with the general average of the skulls of the present age. 
The skeleton has the proportions usually found in man, 
and the skull is of excellent Caucasian type. These re- 
mains belonged to representatives of a race of large, well- 
developed men, who had a brain capacity equal to that 
of men that live to-day. 

There was recently an important discovery of human 
remains made in our own country. Some workmen 
unearthed a skull near Lansing, Kansas, which belongs 
to an extremely early age. It is one of the oldest skulls 

*Quoted uy J. W. Dawson in The Meeting-Place of Geology 
and History. 



Man a Revolution 275 

that has yet been discovered. It is the consensus of opin- 
ion among the men of science that have investigated the 
matter, that it dates from the recession of the ice age. 
The remains were in the loess deposited by the recession 
of the ice age. The man, in all probability, was drowned 
in the floods which occurred just at the close of the 
Glacial epoch in this country. He had probably sought 
shelter under the rocks, and was overtaken by the great 
flood of waters caused by the melting ice, and was 
drowned where he had sought refuge. The sediment 
then quickly formed around the body, and it had lain 
there undisturbed, it may be, for ten thousand years. 
The skeleton is not different from an ordinary man of 
the present day. Some have contended that the skull is 
too modern to be that of a prehistoric man, but of its 
great antiquity there can not be a reasonable doubt. The 
formation in which the remains were found has never 
been disturbed. And in this same formation many pre- 
historic relics and implements have been found. The 
skull is perfectly formed, and might have belonged to 
an individual of the present age. The shape of the skull 
is that of the highest civilized races. The strength and 
breadth of the jaw may indicate that the man belonged 
to the high type of men of his age, but that he led with 
them a rude life. 

The oldest known men are as truly human in their 
structure as the men now living, and no link oi derivation 
between them and the lower animals is known to exist. 
But the skulls of the oldest known men, those of the early 
stone age, were not only equal to those o\ the men of 
the present, but even surpass them in size and brain ca- 
pacity. Alter careful measurement, it has been ascer- 



276 The Origin of Man 

tained that the volume of the ancient skulls is greater 
than that of the modern men of Europe. The skulls of 
the stone age average 18,877, while those of the present 
men, who dwell where these primitive men once lived, 
average only 18,579. And the Hottentots, who are 
among the lowest of living races, average but 17,957. 
According to the volume of the brain, the primitive man 
was not as near the brute as the modern man, who has 
been under the influences of a hig*h civilization for cen- 
turies. Reasoning from such facts as these, we conclude 
that the older men were more perfect than the men of 
the present time. Man was further removed from the 
ape, back at what is regarded as the dawn of the race, 
than he is now after ten thousand years of development. 
What right have we, then, to assume a continual prog- 
ress of man upward, when thousands of years furnish no 
proofs of advance, but rather of degeneration? Primi- 
tive man had the same volume of brain, the same phys- 
ical powers, the same intellectual capacity, and doubtless 
the same moral nature as the men that are now living. 
The geological evidence indicates that man's earliest state 
was his best — that he was a higher and nobler being be- 
fore he became a savage. The oldest skulls of the earliest 
stone age are almost exactly like those of the present day. 
The largest skulls resemble those of the modern philoso- 
pher and statesman of modern times as regards volume 
of brain, and the smallest resemble those of the savage 
tribes of to-day. The oldest living man, however, was 
not quite as near the brute as the man we know. 

It is thought that the oldest known remains of man 
were deposited in undisputed Pliocene beds. The skulls 
of these early men are undoubtedly superior to those of 



Man a Revolution 277 

the ruder types of post-Glacial men. And this fact would 
indicate that man had degenerated, instead of advanc- 
ing, between the time of his first appearance and the early 
modern period. But this is in harmony with what we 
know has taken place with the lower animals, they were 
larger and more numerous in that age than they were 
later on in their history. If man existed in the fine cli- 
mate of the Pliocene epoch, we would naturally expect 
him to be a nobler being, suited to his environment. 
When the cold of the glacial period intervened, he would 
naturally deteriorate to some extent. His mode of life 
would change, and he would have greater difficulty in 
sustaining life. And it is not unreasonable to suppose 
that the earliest man, who was introduced as most of 
the species have been in the full perfection of his powers, 
should in like manner degenerate as the climate changed 
and it became more difficult to sustain life. There is no 
good reason why the law, that when perfection is reached 
degeneration begins, would not hold good with man as 
well as the lower animals. The earth has been steadily 
losing its life-giving warmth, its once delightful and 
equable climate has slowly given place to tropical heat 
and arctic cold. The luxuriant flora that once flourished 
over widespread areas, has yielded to types of marked in- 
feriority ; and its degenerating fauna has ceased to meas- 
ure up in stature to preceding forms. The earth, plant 
life, and animal forms have all degenerated to a greater 
or less extent, and we fail to find any good reason why 
this rule should not hold good with man. According to 
our theory the deterioration in nature reduced the vigor 
and longevity oi the race, but according to the hypothesis 
of evolution it changed anthropoid apes into men. This 



278 The Origin of Man 

is saying that deterioration of environment has devital- 
ized and degraded all forms of life except one, but this 
one, unaided and alone, it has elevated to the physical, 
intellectual, and moral kingship of the world. The 
reasoning of the evolutionists is irrational and illogical, 
therefore, we refuse to accept the conclusion at which 
they arrive. 

The earliest remains of men that have been discov- 
ered are superior to later men, but it is probable that we 
have not found the skeletons of the most perfect men. 
It is more than likely that the remains of the earliest 
men that have been discovered are those of ruder inland 
tribes, who did not enjoy as high a civilization as the 
people that dwelt upon the coasts. In some of the cata- 
clysmic changes the coast country was submerged, and 
the people dwelling there destroyed, while those living 
further inland would be preserved. The conditions of 
life would change as the land was limited in extent, and 
the climate suddenly became cold, and these inland peo- 
ples would, as a result, have a hard struggle to maintain 
life. In order to subsist they would be forced to become 
hunters and fishers, instead of tillers of the soil, and 
would be compelled to dwell in the caves of the earth. 
And in the course of time they would undoubtedly de- 
generate into ruder tribes. 

The explanation of these ruder tribes may be found 
in a cause that has been more recently at work among 
the nations of the earth, and with which we are much 
more familiar than the one that has been suggested. 
These cave dwelling peoples may have been the scattered 
fragments of a more powerful people of noble ancestry 
whom the fortunes of war had driven into hiding in the 



Man a Revolution 279 

caves of the earth. We know that this has been fre- 
quently the case in later times, and it may be the true 
explanation of these early cave dwellers. 

For some such reasons as these we can find no trace 
of the more highly civilized peoples that preceded these 
ruder tribes. But we find in their descendants, who have 
been preserved in these outlying tribes, or remnants of a 
stronger people, something of the same high mental 
powers, though degenerated into a coarser people on ac- 
count of the change in their mode of living. The lands 
are not as extensive as they were before the Glacial period, 
and, consequently, if there were any remains left of these 
more highly civilized races, they have been buried be- 
neath the sea along the coasts. Evolutionists tell us that 
the missing link may lie buried beneath the Indian Ocean, 
and this supposition that there were more highly devel- 
oped peoples that dwelt along the coasts and were de- 
stroyed by some sudden submergence will not appear un- 
reasonable to them. If these higher races were destroyed 
by the fortunes of war, there would be no evidence left of 
their existence except these ruder tribes whose remains 
have been found in the caves of the earth. 

But whether there was a higher and more civilized 
race of men before the earliest men whose remains have 
been unearthed, does not invalidate our argument. These 
remains that have been found tell us that the primitive 
men had the same physical structure and the same cere- 
bral organization; and. with their larger brain capacity, 
the same intellectual powers that men possess at the pres- 
ent time. The most splendid men that civilization can 

produce have no advantage whatever in physical powers 
or intellectual capacity over these primitive men. In 



280 The Origin of Man 

fact, the civilized men do not have their physical and 
mental powers as highly developed as the men who lived 
in the early stone age. The bodily form has not changed 
in the least as far as we can determine. No remains of 
fossil man bear evidence of any less perfect erectness of 
the body, any less brain capacity, any less intelligence, 
than is found in civilized man. On the contrary, the 
evidence bears out the opposite conclusion, that primitive 
man was superior to modern man in physical structure, 
size of brain, and intelligence. The gap between the 
man of the early stone age and the ape is a little wider 
than it is between the modern man and the ape. The 
earlier man had larger bone, stronger muscle, greater 
stature, and excelled in brain capacity. It is apparent 
that the statement, that the difference between the low- 
est men and the highest apes is not greater than the dif- 
frence between the highest and lowest races of men, is 
a fallacy. 

The abruptness of transition between the apes and 
primitive man is striking. The first man, so far as we 
can ascertain, appeared on earth at a definite time, hav- 
ing no historical, organic, or vital connection with any 
race of apes or previously existing species of animals; 
but from the beginning possessed all the characteristics 
of the existing races of men. 

The men who lived in the age of great mammals 
were men of great physical structure and with large brain 
capacity, which would indicate a race of men with high 
and refined cerebral powers. These facts show that man 
in his earlier state, if not at his best, was not only the 
mere equal, but the superior of man as we know him. 
He was a higher and nobler being before he became a 



Man a Revolution 281 

savage. What the evolutionists consider man's primitive 
state is only a lapse into savagery — a degeneration from 
a higher state of civilization. We can go back in geolog- 
ical history perhaps ten thousand years in tracing man, 
and we find the earliest man equal, at least, to the man 
of the present. This has been ample time for evolution 
to produce some little advance in man, if the theory is 
true. But the geological facts are against the hypothesis. 
No remains of ancient man have been found that bear 
evidence that he was less perfect in any particular than 
civilized man. 

The evidence from geological research seems to point 
out the fact that man was introduced into the world, not 
by a gradual process of development, but in some sudden 
and abrupt manner in the full perfection of his powers. 
The facts, as they are found in the geological records, 
preclude the idea of slow uniform change, proceeding 
throughout countless ages. When we take into consid- 
eration the high development of primitive man, on the 
principle of gradual development, his origin would be 
removed not only far beyond the existence of any remains 
of man, but even beyond the time that any animal which 
nearly approximates to him existed. Man must have ex- 
isted a great length of time as a savage before he attained 
the development that his earliest remains indicate. He 
must have existed a much greater length of time as an ape- 
like man, and a still greater length of time as a manlike 
ape. And this would place the origin o\ man further hack 
in time than the anthropoid ape had an existence. It' man 
was evolved from a species of ape, this ancestor oi man 
must have existed as early as the Eocene epoch. If he de- 
scended from an anthropoid ape. it would take fully that 



282 The Origin of Man 

length of time to produce the high state of perfection in 
which we find him at the close of the Glacial period. But 
no such precursors of man can be found in the geological 
records of that epoch. The earliest fossil remains of man 
are still human in all their characteristics, and tell us 
nothing of any previous stages of development. Man 
stands alone unique in space and time. And what right 
have we to assume a continuous progressive change from 
the simple to the complex, from the primitive savage to 
the civilized man, when thousands of years furnish no 
evidence of advance? All the evidence we are able to 
find indicates that man appeared suddenly, and that the 
ancient man was, at least, as perfect as the man now 
living. 

II. 

These ancient men whose fossil remains are found in 
the caves of Europe, possessed no small degree of artistic 
skill as shown by their drawings on the cave walls and 
their carvings on bone and ivory tools. They made tools 
of bone on which they carved the figures of various ani- 
mals, the mammoth, the horse, the deer, and the seal. 
Their carvings surpass what an ordinary man could exe- 
cute with the aid of modern tools. They reveal the fact 
that there were artists in those early days. They made 
ornaments by perforating shells and pieces of ivory. 
There are found in connection with their remains bod- 
kins of bone, and long, beautifully designed knives with 
artistically shaped handles. The shape of the stone ax 
used by these primitive men has not been improved on 



Man a Revolution 283 

by the men of later ages, though they manufacture them 
now out of iron and steel. 

The arts of civilization originated with great invent- 
ors, and not by gradual development extending over 
countless centuries. And the same is doubtless true of 
prehistoric times. The men of inventive genius invented 
the implements used by the cave dwellers. And the orig- 
inal inventions, such as language, fire, and tools, are a 
greater evidence of intellectual powers than the inven- 
tions of modern times, when there are so many inven- 
tions to suggest to the inventive mind new and useful 
devices. 

For us to base our estimate of the intellectual powers 
of the earliest men, or the state of civilization that pre- 
vailed in the world at that time, on the crude implements 
used by some rude outlying tribes, would be like arguing 
from the arts of the aborigines of this country, at its dis- 
covery, what the state of civilization was in Europe at 
the same time. The stone implements that were used 
are no index of what the state of civilization was in the 
rest of the world. The primitive methods of agriculture 
in China, India, and Mexico, are as different from the 
methods employed in this country as the implements used 
in the stone age are from those we employ. 

Relics of prehistoric man have been found in almost 
every country in the world. From these relics we can 
Study the arts, industries, and, by inference, the mental 
development of these early people. Their discoveries in 
one sense may not equal ours, but in another they sur- 
pass them. We have the benefit of the accumulated 
knowledge that has come down to us from the past. 



284 The Origin of Man 

while the early inventions had to be made without the 
aid of suggestions from other inventions. These early 
inventions were made de novo, while the present inven- 
tions are improvements over the old, or are called forth 
by suggestion. The invention of a simple tool in that 
early day would require more mental effort than the 
invention of an intricate machine in our times. These 
primitive men were adepts in the potter's art ; and it was 
far more difficult to make a vessel then, without the aid 
of a lathe, than it is now with the potter's wheel. They 
revealed a certain amount of imitative art in the carving 
of animals on pieces of reindeer antlers, which served as 
handles for weapons and implements of domestic use. 
The beautiful necklaces they made of perforated shells 
indicate that they possessed the same tastes for orna- 
mentation that modern man possesses. And their draw- 
ings are all the more remarkable, when we take into con- 
sideration the rude tools with which they executed them, 
for, as far as we have any knowledge, they had no tools 
except these bone and flint implements. They were fine 
carvers, as shown by their carvings on the teeth of ani- 
mals, shells, and the antlers of deer. The animals 
sketched on the cave walls show remarkable power and 
skill in designing and drawing. With a few swift strokes 
they produced vigorous and true sketches of deer and 
mammoth. These early men buried their dead with care, 
and consequently must have had some ideas of religion 
and the future state. The sum of knowledge has in- 
creased during the ages, but the intellectual capacity has 
not increased with it. There has been great progress in 
the arts and the sciences since these early men dwelt upon 
the earth. There is no reason, however, for believing 



Man a Revolution 285 

that these primitive men were in any way inferior to the 
men that now inhabit the earth. 

There is a vast accumulation of evidence to show 
that the early historical races excelled us in the fine arts 
as well as in many other kinds of culture. Egypt was 
among the earliest centers of civilization. The wonder- 
ful mechanical skill and engineering feats of the early 
Egyptians, as evidenced in the building of the pyramids 
and the erection of the obelisks, is proof of this. The 
Pharoahs had these massive blocks of stone that weigh 
fifty and a hundred tons brought from the quarries a 
hundred and fifty miles away and placed in these walls 
thousands of years ago, and to-day a thin knife blade 
can not be inserted between the joints. We have no idea 
how they handled these rocks of such immense weight, 
and we can not conceive how they could make such per- 
fect joints. It has been supposed that as men were 
plenty, and, as the system of forced labor prevailed at a 
later day, that these great works were all produced by 
large multitudes of laborers without the aid of machin- 
ery, but such an assumption is unreasonable. The fact 
is that they had better engineers, better stone cutters, 
better masons, and much better machinery than we pos- 
sess. For unless they had machinery that was a great 
improvement over anything that we have in modern 
times, they could not have handled these massive rocks 
and placed them in the walls with such perfect joints. 
The Egyptians excelled us in architecture, especially in 
building great massive structures like the pyramids, and 
in the erection of the obelisks made out of a single block 
ot stone. The cap stones on some of these pillars weigh 
as much as two tons, and yet in some way thev were sus- 



286 The Origin of Man 

pended a hundred feet in the air and placed on top of 
the obelisks. And, mark you, these massive works were 
wrought by the Egyptians whose ancestors were among 
the earliest men. The farther you go back in the history 
of Egypt the more perfect the art and architecture are 
found to be. There are found carved ornaments of 
wood, bone, and ivory, inscribed tablets, figures great and 
small, with many other evidences of a high state of civi- 
lization at a time when it was thought that man had not 
yet made his appearance on earth. 

The ruins of Egypt disclose a mighty civilization, 
more grand and massive, but perhaps less elegant, than 
that of Greece. The civilization on the Nile had reached 
its perfection before Greece had received her alphabet. 
In recent times the spade has unearthed in Egypt a civil- 
ization that, in some respects, has never been surpassed 
by any nation. These early people were famous for the 
sciences, were skilled in weaving, and produced colors so 
lasting that after a lapse of four thousand years they re- 
tain their pristine freshness. Long before the time of 
Moses they had attained perfection in architecture, weav- 
ing, and writing that has never since been excelled. The 
high state of art found in that country in the earliest 
times, indicate that the first inhabitants far excelled the 
later. For recent discoveries establish the fact that the 
works of the later inhabitants were surpassed by the men 
who dwelt there as long ago as six thousand years. The 
art we know is degenerated, while that of ancient time 
was vastly superior to it. The recent explorers have 
found in the ancient tombs proof of a civilization that ex- 
isted in that country, at the least estimation, four thou- 
sand years before the Christian era began. And it is es- 



Man a Revolution 287 

tablished by these discoveries, that instead of the Egyp- 
tian art we know being the beginnings, the initial striv- 
ings of a crude people to express themselves, this art is 
clearly shown to be debased and degenerated from an 
infinitely higher form of art many scores of generations 
earlier. There is found in Egypt no evidence of an in- 
fancy in art. There was a high state of civilization on 
the Nile, surpassing in many respects the achievements 
of the present day, when evolutionists would have us be- 
lieve that man was a primitive savage, only a little re- 
moved from the lower order of beings. 

No capital of the world has been the center of greater 
power, wealth, culture, and luxury, for so vast a period 
of time, as ancient Babylon. The peoples that dwelt on 
the Euphrates had attained to a high state of civilization 
thousands of years before the coming of Christ. They 
surpassed us in architecture and in the munificence of 
their works of art. They had grand palaces, hanging 
gardens, and magnificent temples. The ruins of Nineveh 
indicate that the same high state of civilization that ex- 
isted in Babylon prevailed there in an early day. But 
where these once flourishing civilizations held sway, there 
now dwells a handful of debased people. These degen- 
erated inhabitants live in their mud huts, built on the 
mounds of earth that cover a superior civilization and 
hide from view the remains of a mighty people who once 
dwelt there in walled cities, and enjoyed the luxuries 
produced in these rich valleys, as well as the tribute paid 
by many conquered nations. There have been exhumed 
from these mounds evidences of art and knowledge which 
were hitherto supposed to have been developed in more 
recent times. 



288 The Origin of Man 

The ancient Greeks surpassed modern nations in 
sculpture, painting, and architecture. The Parthenon, 
in the beauty of its proportions and the fitness of its 
ornamentation, has never been excelled. The temple of 
Diana has never been surpassed by any modern temple. 
And, when we undertake to produce, to-day, a building 
that surpasses the ordinary, we are forced to go back and 
copy from the architecture of the ancient Greeks. The 
human form cut in marble by Grecian sculptors has served 
as a model for centuries, and has been an inspiration to 
hundreds of aspiring artists. The architecture of Greece 
is beautiful and imposing, possessing grandeur, strength, 
and solidity. The culture, learning, and refinement of 
the ancient Greeks excels that of all other nations, unless 
it was ancient Egypt from whom she borrowed much of 
that elegance and culture that distinguished her. This 
high civilization suffered decline and fell into decay. 
The morals of the people did not continue in a high state 
of virtue and the people became corrupted. There fol- 
lowed decline in learning, art, and architecture, and the 
civilization fell before the relentless invader. Three hun- 
dred years had scarcely passed after the age of Pericles, 
before the glory of Greece had departed ; and her career 
as the most highly cultured people of which history fur- 
nishes any record was forever at an end. 

In ancient Rome there were the palaces of the Caesars, 
the Coliseum, and the Forum, all of which were famous 
and magnificent buildings, surpassing the modern works 
of men. These glorious piles of stone reared by the old 
Romans witness to the present age that the architect who 
designed them was no mean being with inferior powers, 
though he did belong to the distant past. And corre- 



Man a Revolution 289 

sponding with the architecture, there was a high state of 
culture, and the fine arts had reached a high state of per- 
fection. The superiority of the Romans in art and arch- 
itecture, and their intellectual greatness is admitted, but 
it is claimed that they lived in cheerless houses, into 
which the cold and storms of winter could enter without 
hindrance, for it is thought that they knew nothing of 
glass. But the excavators at Pompeii discovered a glass 
factory in which there were all varieties of glass, includ- 
ing window glass, and the notion of uncomfortable homes 
has to be abandoned. But the splendor won by Roman 
arms fell into decay. A race enervated by indulgence, 
and weakened by luxury, became an easy prey to the vig- 
orous conquerors from the barbaric North. Five hun- 
dred years after the golden age of Augustus, the Goths 
had pillaged Rome and stripped her of her power. 

Excavations on the Island of Crete have recently un- 
covered the ruins of temples and palaces that belonged 
to an ancient people who dwelt on the island and en- 
joyed a high state of civilization. The ruins of these old 
structures indicate no mean skill in architecture. Stones 
have been found in the excavations on which there are 
engraved a written language older than the Greek, differ- 
ing from the Hittite, and unlike the Phenecian, hence, 
could not have been derived from any of these tongues. 
There was a superior state of civilization existing in 
Crete at least fourteen centuries before the Christian era 
began. 

In the excavations made at the ancient city of Troy 

by Dr. Sleiman, there was found unmistakable evidence 

in the different strata of the old ruins that a rude stone 

age with rude stone implements has followed an age com- 

19 



£90 The Origin of Man 

paratively high in civilization, in which weapons and tools 
of bronze were employed, and jewels of copper and gold 
were worn as ornaments. 

In Iceland there are found ruins that once belonged 
to a superior people and a higher civilization. The 
Esquimaux are a degenerated people from these higher 
races that once peopled that region of the continent, when 
there was a warmer climate and a more favorable environ- 
ment. There was a change of climate and a deterioration 
of nature, and these people relapsed into barbarism. 

The mound builders that once inhabited this land be- 
fore the time of the Indians used bronze tools, and doubt- 
less built great temples on these mounds which we find 
scattered over the land. They were succeeded by an in- 
ferior race. We have no means of knowing whether 
they were driven out by the invasion of cruder peoples, 
as has been so often the case, or whether they degen- 
erated as the result of luxurious living and the undermin- 
ing influence of moral evil. There are distinct traces of 
Asiatic art and religion found in the remains of the 
mound builders, which suggest that ages ago this country 
may have been settled by peoples from the Ear East. 

In Mexico there are ancient ruins of temples and 
palaces that never were built by the present inhabitants. 
The people who dwelt in that land at its discovery were 
degenerated and lived far beneath these earlier inhab- 
itants. These temples, palaces, and residences made of 
dressed stone, show advanced development in mechanical 
skill and architecture. Recently there was picked up in 
the ruins of an old temple in that land a scarab that seems 
to identify these early people with China or Egypt. 

And the same discoveries have been made in South 



Man a Revolution 291 

America. Old ruins are found scattered throughout that 
land, which are now overgrown with giant trees. These 
old ruins were built of dressed stone, and were the work 
of a superior people that ages ago inhabited that land. 
The ruins give evidence of a high degree of civilization, 
and show that there were skilled architects and builders 
in the earlier times before the land was peopled with 
savages. 

There are unmistakable evidences in almost every 
country on the globe of an earlier people and a departed 
civilization. These facts prove that there is no founda- 
tion for the assumption that the race began as primitive 
savages, and gradually advanced, step by step, until man- 
kind has attained to the high state of civilization of the 
present. The aborigines of these lands were not de- 
veloped apes, but, on the contrary, were the descendants 
of higher and more civilized peoples that have formerly 
inhabited these countries. 

It is impossible to harmonize these early civilizations 
with a slow and gradual elevation of the race from the 
primitive savage to civilized man. Geological time is 
insufficient for man to have been produced by a long, 
tedious, uninterrupted process extending through thou- 
sands of years of development in order to bring him from 
a state of savagery to a high state of civilization and cul- 
ture, such as flourished in Egypt and Assyria six thou- 
sand years ago. 

And the theory of evolution fails to account for the 
fact that the less remote centuries furnish examples of 
peoples who reached a higher stale of per feet ion than has 
since been attained. Greece had her immortal past, when 



292 The Origin of Man 

the Parthenon, the temple of Diana, and her matchless 
works of art were produced. But her walls have 
crumbled, the columns have fallen, and Greece is only 
remembered for her immortal past. There was once a 
mighty civilization on the banks of the Tiber, when the 
Coliseum and the Forum were constructed and Rome 
was the mistress of the world. But luxury usurped the 
place of simplicity, prodigality wasted the strength of 
the nation, and that civilization was trodden down by 
the ruthless tread of the barbarian hordes. In these an- 
cient nations there was a sudden change from civilization 
to barbarism. In spite of law, of culture, of art, of re- 
ligion, society constantly declined. Evolutionists may 
talk about the necessary progress of the race, but let 
them explain why the civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, 
Greece, and Rome were swept away to give place to bar- 
barism. 

Contrary to the theory of evolution, we are compelled 
to go back to the distant past for man's highest perfection. 
We are forced to go back to Moses, the trained scholar 
and peerless legislator, for the fundamental principles of 
our laws. He lived back yonder in the remote past. And 
he was not the descendant of a long line of law-givers, 
but the offspring of a slave, the descendant of a race of 
slaves. He was taken from the home of a slave and 
trained in all the learning and wisdom of Egypt. And 
above the law-givers of our times he sits enthroned, the 
greatest law-giver the world has ever known. But the 
critics have made Moses out a myth, some one is ready 
to say. Let us admit it, for the sake of argument, and 
it only strengthens our position. If Genesis was com- 
piled from earlier writings, there must have been greater 



Man a Revolution 293 

learning and wiser men in that earlier age than in later 
times. 

We talk about the philosophers of to-day, but we 
must go back into the past for the greatest philosophers, 
Plato and Aristotle. The abstruse speculations of these 
ancient philosophers have never been equaled for acute- 
ness and severity of logic. Evolution is frequently 
spoken of as the "new philosophy," but the philosophy of 
Huxley and Spencer is almost identical with the Advatia 
philosophy, the earliest philosophy of India, w T hich dates 
back at least three thousand five hundred years before 
Christ. The philosophy of Schopenhauer is strikingly 
similar to the Vikramaditva philosophy of India, which 
dates back more than three thousand years before the 
birth of Christ. Democrates taught atomical philosophy 
and the survival of the fittest. Epicurius and Lucretius 
outlined the whole evolutionary philosophy two thou- 
sand years ago. The evolutionary philosophy so far from 
being new has been entertained for thousands of years. 

The great orators, such as Demosthenes and Cicero, 
though belonging to the past, stand in the forefront 
among the world's greatest orators. 

The great creative poets lived in the centuries of the 
past. Homer, the greatest Greek poet, Goethe the great- 
est German poet; Dante, the greatest Italian poet; and 
Shakespeare, the greatest English poet, all belonged to 
the past. 

The master painters, like Angelo and Raphael, lived 
in the past. We are indebted to the men who lived ages 
ago for most of our noblest works of art. The statues 
of the ancient sculptures are models of hopeless imita- 
tion. Are there any modern statues that show the grace 



294 The Origin of Man 

of form of the Venus de Milo and the Apollo Belvedere ? 
And where is the equal of the Torso Belvedere, to which 
Angelo declared he owed his power of representing the 
human form? These noted works of art all belong to 
the past. We talk about the accumulated results of cen- 
turies of culture and progress, and seem to imagine that 
we are the most enlightened and cultured people that 
have ever dwelt upon the earth. Can we rival the skill 
that produced the massive architecture of Egypt, the art 
of ancient Greece, the military genius of Rome? The 
classic nations whose literature we study, whose art we 
imitate, and whose achievements we emulate, all belonged 
to bygone ages. And who can trace to their fountain- 
head the streams that have enriched the literature of the 
world ? Who can name these great masters who produced 
these perfect works of art ? The outcome of untold ages 
of development and culture is a race of men with less 
brain capacity, less achitectural skill, less artistic genius, 
less poetical fancy, and less philosophical acumen, than 
was possessed by the ancients. These facts are difficult to 
fit into the fine-spun theories of evolution. If the hypoth- 
esis is true, men should be far advanced beyond their 
present attainments. We should not have to look back- 
ward, but forward and now for the highest attainments 
of men. The blazing lights behind us dazzle our eyes, 
but, on the showing of evolution, there ought to be vastly 
brighter lights around and before us, but we fail to dis- 
cover them. In the early ages we have an aristocracy in 
art, architecture, philosophy, oratory, and poetry, but we 
find in succeeding ages vast numbers of inferior men, 
who, instead of producing anything original, are only 
imitating the works of the masters. 



Man a Revolution 295 



III. 



Evolution must account for human history as well as 
the inorganic and the organic world. But the history of 
the race with its advances and retrograde movements 
can not be satisfactorily accounted for by this hypothesis. 
If the trend of events had always been upward, the theory 
would explain history, but there have been downward 
movements, followed by upward movements which have 
been the result of sudden impulses. 

In regard to civilization the great mistake has been 
in comparing the former conditions of civilized nations 
with their present state of development. From the be- 
ginning of history the various grades of civilization have 
existed, not in succession, mark you, but simultaneously. 
We are highly civilized, it is true, but there is abundant 
savagery in various parts of the earth. Civilized na- 
tions and uncivilized nations have existed side by side 
since the dawn of history, just as they do in our own 
times. While our ancestors were practicing the crudest 
savagery in the British Isle and in the forests of Ger- 
many, there was a high state of civilization in other parts 
of the world. The kaleidoscope has been given a turn, 
and we have advanced, while they have retrograded. We 
enjoy a high state of civilization in this country, but 
there have been living in savagery all these years under 
the shadow of our civilization, thousands o\ the aborig- 
ines o\ this land. In our very midst, in our great cities. 
only a short distance from the homes oi wealth and re- 
finement, there are thousands that are living in little bet- 



296 The Origin of Man 

ter than barbarism. In the black belts of the Southern 
States there are other thousands that are living in gross 
ignorance and in the practice of appalling superstitions. 
And in the mountain regions of these states are people of 
our own blood, whose forefathers were among the pio- 
neers that helped to redeem this continent from the 
primitive forests, who have stepped aside from the path 
of progress, and are not any farther advanced than the 
early settlers from whom they descended. If the present 
civilization were overthrown by some cataclysmic change, 
the scientist, two thousand years hence, might find 
abundant evidence in this land to substantiate the theory 
of evolution by showing that there existed here at the 
present time a low grade of civilization. 

The present races of men were preceded by other races 
that have passed away. The savage is a degenerated 
man, not a primitive type. And no correct theory of 
what primitive man was can be built upon the conditions 
of the savage of to-day. The analogy is false, for the 
cases are not parallel. At the same time that a high state 
of civilization existed in Europe, when this continent was 
discovered, savages in this land were using chipped flint 
instruments. The lowest degree of civilization co-existed 
with the highest. There existed here a condition of 
things, just where evolution begins in the development of 
primitive man as a savage. Evolutionists contend for a 
unity of origin. But in order to explain these facts, ac- 
cording to the development theory, there must have been 
a multiplicity of origins. There can be no force in the 
claim that the primitive savage is represented by the 
present savage unless this is true. If the present savage is 
not a degenerated man, then it follows that he had a more 



Man a Revolution 297 

recent origin than the civilized man. Otherwise, it is a 
complete begging of the question to attempt to sustain 
the theory of evolution from the materials furnished by 
the savage culture of to-day. 

The primitive savage is a familiar term in evolution- 
ary writings, but there is no evidence that the primitive 
savage ever existed. The mythical writings of almost 
every nation refer to a "golden age'' in the past, which 
was far removed from savagery. The recent discoveries 
of archaeologists confirm these so-called myths, and show 
that in all probability they are founded on fact. There 
are no traces of savagery to be found in the ancient ruins 
of the nations that once exercised dominion over the 
earth. The evidence indicates that man was a superior 
being before he became a savage. The so-called primitive 
savage has back of him as many centuries as the civilized 
races. Given human beings normally endowed at the be- 
ginning, and history indicates how the savagery of the 
past and present could have originated easily and natu- 
rally, simply by the violation of natural and moral laws. 
In all probability the savage is the offshoot of some higher 
race of men, who possessed moral and intellectual attain- 
ments of an advanced type. These savages are in a con- 
dition precisely the opposite of human nature in its nor- 
mal state. They have degenerated into a condition of 
savagery and have remained almost stationary for cen- 
turies. 

There is a tendency to revert to a baser life among 
nations as well as individuals. Nations rise to great emi- 
nence and power and gradually sink back into a state oi 
savagery. Degeneration in races is a well-established 
fact, and without doubt the savages known to us have 



298 The Origin of Man 

deteriorated from some higher races. The fossil remains 
of primitive man that have been discovered indicate that 
he was a higher and nobler being before he became a sav- 
age. It is not reasonable to suppose that such high devel- 
opment of brain and intellect could have been engrafted 
on a primitive savage. These powers must have been the 
remnants of a nobler organism deteriorated through moral 
evil, or the result of degeneration from changed and 
unfavorable environment, necessitating an entirely differ- 
ent manner of life. The old ruins that are discovered in 
lands that are now inhabited by savages reveal the fact 
that these lands were once peopled by higher races. Un- 
questionably the evidence is abundant to prove that there 
has been degeneration in the human race instead of the 
continuous advance that the theory of evolution requires. 
The centuries tell the solemn story of the encroach- 
ments of barbaric tribes upon highly civilized peoples, 
laying waste the greatest nations, undoing the life work 
of great statesmen, and bringing to naught the progress 
of hundreds of years. Egypt was repeatedly overrun 
by the invasion of peoples much lower in the scale of 
civilization. Babylon was invaded by barbarians and 
the labors of centuries destroyed. Rome, after long cen- 
turies of dominion and power, was overrun by the bar- 
baric hordes. These higher civilizations were done to 
death by these unfit savage hordes. And how many mag- 
nificent buildings, historic pictures, masterpieces of lit- 
erature, and beautiful works of art were destroyed, can 
never be known. The invasions of these nations by the 
barbarians determined on the plunder which a superior 
civilization spread out before them were retrograde 
movements. This was the destruction of what would 



Man a Revolution 299 

seem to have been the fittest that the unfit might survive. 
But this has been characteristic of the history of the race, 
advance has always been followed by retrogression. Men 
of genius have founded great empires, and there has fol- 
lowed a period of development in which great cities have 
been founded, magnificent buildings erected, beautiful 
works of art produced, and an extensive commerce built 
up, but with the acquisition of wealth and the introduc- 
tion of luxuries the people have invariably become effem- 
inate, and decay and death are the final result. As these 
nations have advanced in the scale of civilization they 
have turned aside from righteousness and moral recti- 
tude which characterized the founders of the nation ; and, 
hence, this higher civilization was overthrown by the in- 
vasion of a less cultured but more vigorous people. 

The old nations have degenerated and new nations 
have sprung up and taken their place. And the change 
from the old nation to the new has been brought about by 
degeneration and revolution. The changes in these na- 
tions have not been in harmony with the hypothesis of 
evolution, but in direct violation of its principles. The 
civilizations that have come down to us have been main- 
tained to a great extent by the infusion of new blood 
from cruder peoples into old and effete nations. And 
where there has been no invasion of cruder peoples there 
seems to have been a gradual degeneration until the peo- 
ple have reached the lowest depth of savagery. This may 
be the explanation of the savagery that existed on this 
continent at its discovery. These people had degenerated 
and become stagnate. When civilized nations are over- 
run by barbarous trihrs, the destroying waves of the sav- 
age hordes come suddenly like a tlood of mighty rushing 



300 The Origin of Man 

waters sweeping everything before them. But following 
the invasion the higher nations, enervated by luxury and 
vice, are restored to life and youth by the mixture of new 
blood from the crude but vigorous peoples. 

Since the beginning of history there seems always to 
have been somewhere a great civilization on earth, and 
never has the whole of mankind been civilized, unless it 
was in prehistoric times. What we consider primitive, 
so far as we know, is nothing more than a lapse into sav- 
agery. Man is separated by a great gap from the animals 
nearest him in the scale of being. It is true that he is a 
member of the class mammalia as to his body, but he 
stands alone in his class, the sole species of his genus. 
The ape is contented with its surroundings ; if it has food 
when it is hungry, it is satisfied. Man aspires to some- 
thing higher. We find no remains whatever of interme- 
diate forms. The earliest remains of man are still human, 
and tell us nothing as to previous stages of development. 
There is no evidence that sustains the assumption that 
the race began in a savage state, and gradually advanced 
until it reached the present state of civilization. Instead 
of the savages being the representatives of primitive man, 
they are degenerated from a once higher people. Drum- 
mond tries to escape the force of this fact by contending 
that savages are the result of evolution. He says: 
"Granted that nations have degenerated, it still remains 
to account for that from which they degenerated. That 
Egypt has fallen from a great height is certain, but the 
real problem is how it got to that height. When a boy's 
kite descends into our garden we do not assume it came 
from the clouds. That it went up before it came down is 
obvious from all we know about kite-making, and na- 



Man a Revolution 301 

tions went up before they came down, is obvious from 
what we know about nation making."* But this is a 
complete begging of the question at issue. While it is 
true that "all that goes up must come down," yet it does 
not follow that all that comes down must have of neces- 
sity first gone up before it could come down. We admit 
that that which comes down must have been up before it 
could descend, but deny that it must have first ascended 
from the earth before it could have fallen. The meteor 
that fell in a neighboring state a few months ago, did not 
go up before it came down. The real problem before us 
is the origin of the men that composed these nations, that 
have once enjoyed a high state of civilization, but have 
since fallen into decay. Did they first ascend like a kite 
from the lowest level of savagery to the highest civiliza- 
tion, and then fall to the ground again ? Did they begin 
with a high state of civilization, and then fall from their 
lofty height like the meteor? The mere fact that primi- 
tive man came down — that he degenerated from a higher 
condition into a savage state — is no proof whatever that 
he developed from an ape. That we find everywhere na- 
tions that are degenerated, furnishes no proof that the 
earliest nations started as rude tribes of savages, and 
gradually developed into civilized nations. All that we 
know is that the nations beyond the dawn of history were 
higher than they were at a later period in their national 
history. And, for all that we know to the contrary, they 
may have begun their history at the very acme of civiliza- 
tion. The fact that they were more highly developed in 
prehistoric times than they are at the present, is strong 



♦The Ascenl of Man. p. [38, 



302 The Origin of Man 

presumptive evidence in favor ' of this assumption. If 
man first went up before he degenerated, as Professor 
Drummond admits, the earliest man was not a primitive 
savage. It pushes his origin back beyond the limits of 
time allowed by geological history. And the so-called 
primitive savage is the result of degeneration. 

If we push man's civilization further back, it does not 
leave sufficient time to evolve him from the lower ani- 
mals. We discover that man, far back beyond the dawn 
of history, has enjoyed a high state of civilization, and, if 
evolution is true, it required untold millions of years to 
bring him to this high state of civilization. The age of 
the barbarian was long, but that of the primitive savage 
must have been much longer. The age of the apelike 
man was of great length, and that of the manlike ape was 
of still greater length. And as we trace the process of 
development back through the lower animals we find that 
the development of man by evolution is precluded by the 
limits of geological time. We discover the remains of 
men, who were a little nearer physical and mental per- 
fection than the men of the present, who lived back yon- 
der before the Glacial period. There are insurmountable 
difficulties in the way of the development of the race 
from anthropoid apes through infinitesimal changes. 
It seems reasonable, in the light of the facts, that man 
was introduced at once in full perfection, and that he 
afterwards fell as a meteor from his high estate, and not 
as a kite after he had ascended from an ape. 

If man attained such a high state of civilization in 
the prehistoric past, according to the theory of evolution, 
he should be much further advanced than he is at pres- 
ent. Why is mankind now so far short of perfection? 



Man a Revolution 303 

Many savage tribes are in the same condition in which 
they were first discovered centuries ago. There has not 
been the least development in these races. These savage 
tribes have always coexisted with civilized nations. And 
many of the nations that once enjoyed the highest civil- 
ization have ceased to exist, while others still continue in 
existence, but have degenerated. In fact all the great 
nations of antiquity have either been exterminated, or 
live in diminished numbers and power. Man has reached 
the highest degree of civilization, and then has suffered 
degeneration. Retrogression among the nations of the 
earth has been more general than progress. Compara- 
tively few peoples have progressed at any given time, 
the vast majority of the inhabitants of the earth having 
lived in a state of semi-barbarism, or in actual savagery. 
Civilized races have been frequently replaced by savage 
races. The uncivilized man has overrun the civilized 
man. The law that operates in animal life in destroying 
so many species, has operated among the peoples of the 
earth also. When perfection is reached it is prophetic of 
degeneration and death. 

Nations have reached a high degree of civilization, 
then dwindled in power, and finally degenerated into 
barbarism. And when they have once degenerated into 
savagery they never civilize themselves. There is no 
historical evidence of a change from a savage people into 
a state, of civilization by their own unaided efforts. Sav- 
age peoples have become civilized. The Anglo-Saxons 
were once the crudest savages. But the transformation 
from savagery to civilization lias been brought about 
Only when sonic power outside o\ themselves Ins oper- 
ated o\\ them, and has lifted them up out of their savage 



304 The Origin of Man 

state. Civilization has been able to develop only when 
it has been governed by principles that are above the nat- 
ural—that are, in fact, supernatural. When a civilized 
nation begins to cultivate the natural appetites and pas- 
sions, that is, live a strictly natural life, they invariably 
degenerate. Nature, therefore, can not produce civiliza- 
tion, for nature destroys civilization. It takes something 
above nature to produce a high state of civilization. And 
human nature has not changed during the past centuries. 
Man is what he was thousands of years ago. If civilized 
nations follow in the footsteps of the nations that have 
fallen into decay, and cultivate their natural appetites and 
passions, they will dwindle in power and degenerate. 
And if this holds good through all the ages of which we 
have any knowledge, is there any reason for supposing 
that there was a time when the law did not operate? If 
savages can not civilize themselves at the present time, 
is it possible that the primitive savage civilized himself? 
If it takes a civilizing influence from without to elevate 
a savage people now, was there ever a time in the history 
of the race when man could lift himself out of savagery 
by his own efforts? This is an unwarrantable supposi- 
tion, and therefore the conclusion is unavoidable that 
man started in life at the acme of civilization. And he 
afterwards fell into savagery because he violated these 
higher principles, and attempted to live on the plane of 
the natural, instead of the supernatural. 

The civilized nations have been lifted out of barbar- 
ism, but there are other nations that have not made the 
least advance for a thousand years. We enjoy many 
privileges and have great advantages that our ancestors 
did not possess, but it does not necessarily follow that we 



Man a Revolution 305 

have any greater mental capacity than they possessed. 
The faculties of the human mind are essentially the same 
among civilized nations and savage tribes. The differ- 
ence is only in the degree of their development. Our 
boast of intellectual superiority as a race is not well 
founded. The Australian native child has been able to 
hold his own in the schools with the English child. The 
child of the black man in this country has shown that he 
has a mind equal in mental capacity to that of his fair- 
skinned neighbor. The Negro slave has given us men, 
in the brief time that he has been free, that are the in- 
tellectual peers of the men of the race that held him in 
bondage. The Indian youth has proven that he has a 
mind equal to that of the American youth. A child of 
the Aleutt Indians of Alaska, whose ancestors had never 
had any educational advantages, was adopted by a gen- 
tleman in Chicago 1 , and she graduated there a short time 
ago at the head of a class of twelve hundred pupils in the 
grammar school of one of the best residence districts. 
And Colonel Piatt, after twenty years in the Indian 
school at Carlisle, holds that heredity has practically no 
influence on Indian children taken from their savage 
parents to be educated. He contends that the education 
of the Indians is nothing more than a human problem. 
And such facts as these show that these races are not 
in any way inferior to us except in such things as are 
the result of accidental circumstances. We have the 
benefits of a high civilization from infancy, while they 
are born in a state of barbarism. Bui in reality there is 
no difference between us and the less favored races. And 

the fact thai the races that have lived in savagery for 
ayes have shown the same mental ability that the civilized 



306 The Origin of Man 

races possess, refutes the argument of evolutionists as 
to the state of the primitive savage, which is based on 
the inferiority of present savage races. 

The claim that religion is but the accompanying mani- 
festation of a civilizing process, developing with the up- 
ward trend of the race, is not well founded. It is not 
true that there was in the beginning a polytheism which 
gradually developed into monotheism, and monotheism 
developed through Judaism into Christianity. On the 
contrary, the worship of the one supreme God was first, 
and when men, through the violation of divine laws, fell 
into a state of degeneracy, they made gods for them- 
selves of that which possessed the greatest power, or 
was to them the most mysterious, until in this way they 
had a multiplicity of gods. A careful study of the re- 
ligious beliefs of heathen peoples reveals the fact that they 
believe, as a rule, in a supreme God, and that their idols 
are only meant to symbolize him. The belief in one 
supreme God led in this way to the belief in many gods, 
for as they became more debased and degenerated they 
were further removed from their earlier beliefs. 

The earliest state of religion was the highest, just as 
the earliest state of gospel teaching was the highest. 
There was the pure worship of the one God in the be- 
ginning, followed by decay and the introduction of false 
gods and idol worship. There is no reason why a primi- 
tive savage should worship something inferior to him- 
self unless the belief that it symbolized something higher 
led to this worship. The Chinese, for example, are idol 
worshipers, and worship many gods, but four thousand 
years ago they were monotheists. And the Africans have 
gods almost without number, but in times of extremity 



Man a Revolution 307 

they pray to the one supreme God without the aid of their 
idols to symbolize him. 

And even since the introduction of Christianity there 
have been repeated retrograde movements in religion. 
The stream is always clearer and purer near its fountain- 
head, and as it flows further down, it is joined by other 
streams that darken and foul its waters. And the same 
is true with the waters of life, for religion is purer and 
freer from error in its beginnings than it is in its later 
history. The Church of Christ was purer in the apos- 
tolic age than it has ever been since that time. Moham- 
medanism was a retrograde movement, a reversion of 
type, going back to the primitive conditions of the patri- 
archial age. Roman Catholicism was a backward move- 
ment from a higher type of Christianity to the Levitical 
system, with a large intermixture of heathenism. And 
the same tendency is seen in religion that so often occurs 
in the progress of civilization; there are many new up- 
ward impulses, when, the truth is freed from error and the 
church prospers for a time, followed by formalism and 
laxity of morals, resulting in a degenerated church. The 
development of religion no more harmonizes with the 
theory of evolution than the progress of civilization. 

IV. 

The one great barrier between the ape and man is 
language. And this is a barrier that has never been 
crossed by the brute creation. The fact that all lan- 
guages descended from a common ancestral tongue, how- 
ever, is employed as an argument for evolution. Modern 
laneruaeres are traced back to the Aryan family, and it 



308 The Origin of Man 

is asserted that the various languages were evolved from 
this language. But instead of modern languages being 
wholly the outgrowth of a process of evolution, they 
are as much the outgrowth of degeneration and direct 
coinage. It is true that there has been development in 
languages, but it is equally true that there has been de- 
generation. The process of degeneration has gone on 
until some languages that are spoken at present are less 
perfect than the more ancient language from which they 
descended. The primitive man who originated these 
languages must have had as perfect intellectual powers 
as any of his descendants. The grammatical complexity 
and logical perfection of these earliest languages, even 
as found among barbarians, imply a high intellectual 
capacity in their original framers. And where such com- 
plex and perfect languages are spoken by very rude peo- 
ples, like the natives of this country and Australia, it 
indicates that they originated with a cultured and intel- 
lectual people. Linguists point out the fact that lan- 
guages have undergone degeneration, and conclude that 
man must have deteriorated at the same time. The de- 
scendants of the earlier people that inhabited this country 
have deteriorated into the savages we find them. But 
the language they speak, while it has degenerated so that 
it is not as perfect as that spoken by the earlier people, 
yet it has not become as greatly degenerated as the peo- 
ple themselves. The degeneration of the people being 
more rapid than the language they speak, accounts for 
the fact that many languages spoken by crude peoples 
have a richness of expression and a perfection of struc- 
ture that could not have been brought into their high 
state of development by the people now speaking them. 



Man a Revolution 309 

Philologists adhere to the organic union of all lan- 
guages. And evolutionists argue that as we have such 
a variety of languages, all of which can be traced back 
to one common tongue, that the present languages must 
have originated from this early tongue by a process 
of gradual development. We do not deny that 
there has been development in languages, but 
hold that these modern languages have not orig- 
inated solely by a process of evolution. There 
have been many new words and phrases added to the lan- 
guages that have been coined outright. Every new in- 
vention and discovery makes it necessary to coin new 
words, and language grows largely in this way. It is 
surprising how many of our words have been introduced 
into our language to designate some new invention or 
discovery. Many words are adopted from foreign and 
dead languages in this manner, without the slightest 
change, not even in pronunciation. And there are a vast 
number of words that are introduced into the language 
from slang. In fact, slang is but language in the mak- 
ing. A word originates to-day in this way, and in a few 
clays it sweeps the entire country. It is placed under 
the ban, it is cast out of polite society, but in spite of 
good usage and polite society, it, not infrequently, gains 
a permanent place in the language. A supplement to a 
dictionary of our language, recently issued, shows that in 
the last ten years seventeen thousand new words, and 
new meanings to words, have been added to the English 
language. The growth o\ the language is much more 
rapid than most of us have ever supposed it to he. 

The expansion o\ language, the coinage o\ new words. 
the introduction of new meanings to words, and the 



310 The Origin of Man 

pronunciation of words are all, matters which are under 
control of the few, and have resulted, as a rule, by the 
arbitrary determination of dictionary makers. Language 
receives additions by the coinage of new words, and old 
words, becoming obsolete, are no longer used. Words 
like the fashions, frequently change, and then come into 
fashion again in a few years without any apparent rea- 
son. Words that some years ago became obsolete have 
regained respectability, and have, apparently, won a per- 
manent place in the language. The changes in the lan- 
guage have been brought about arbitrarily without any 
satisfactory reason, and often in spite of good usage. 
We find that the expansion of the language has come by 
the coinage of new words, the addition of new inflections, 
the introduction of new meanings, and the change of pro- 
nunciation, and all of them have been accomplished more 
or less arbitrarily. The growth of the language does not 
seem to conform to the gradual development that evo- 
lution presupposes. 

When a new language has been formed by the fusion 
of two peoples speaking separate languages, there is the 
same arbitrary adoption of parts of each distinct tongue. 
The new language consequently exhibits a greater or 
less preponderance of the characteristics of one of the 
parent languages, as the one population has compelled 
the other to adopt the greater part of its peculiar modes 
of speech. And the conquering nation does not by any 
means always force its language on the conquered people. 
What seems to be the unfit people often survives in the 
language. If they lacked the fitness to vanquish their 
conquerors on the field of battle, they conquer by impos- 
ing their language on the stronger people. And the 



Man a Revolution 311 

language that originates in this way is not always the 
best that might have been produced, by any means. The 
language, however, reaches a permanent form in spite 
of rules and the best usage. It is all brought about in 
a manner that does not admit of explanation. The re- 
sults are unforeseen, and what the final outcome will be 
no one is able to predict. The formation of a language 
by the fusion of two peoples is far from being the result 
of the process of evolution, for it is accomplished in an 
arbitrary manner. 

But how have the languages that are now spoken 
reached their present form? Have they been developed 
by the processes of evolution alone, or have other in- 
fluences helped to bring them to their present state of per- 
fection? Language, we find, radiates from a common 
center along the line of migration of the human family. 
It spreads out from this common center until it reaches 
the circumference of the race. Language changes more 
rapidly when men migrate into new countries, and are 
surrounded by new objects and face a new set of condi- 
tions. As these migrating tribes become further sep- 
arated from the common center, they would be placed 
under circumstances where the language would change 
more rapidly; and as some of them migrated still further, 
there would be new conditions and new objects to name. 
A change from the low lands to the mountain regions, 
or from a limbered country to one with open plains would 
require the introduction oi almost an entirely new set oi 
words. The language would grow in this way largely 
by the coinage o{ new words. And not only by the in- 
troduction of new words, but by the loss o\ old words. 
Degeneration would soon begin, old words would be- 



312 The Origin of Man 

come obsolete and drop out of use, and at the same time, 
new words would be coined to take the place of those 
that had become obsolete. And after a time a new dialect 
would be formed, and, finally, after they had become 
completely isolated from the old parent stock a sufficient 
length of time, coming also in contact with other tribes 
that had undergone similar changes, a new language 
would be formed like the old, containing the old roots, 
but changed by the coinage of new words and the intro- 
duction of new meanings to old words, until it had be- 
come a new language. 

But what shall we call this process by which the old 
language is lost sight of, and the new language is de- 
veloped ? It does not meet the requirements of evolution, 
for it is not a development from the lower to the higher 
language, but a degeneration from the higher to the 
lower. There is the loss of old words and the coinage of 
new words to explain new conditions and to name new 
objects. These two factors seem to us to be the chief 
ones employed in originating the new language. It may 
seem iconoclastic to claim that language is the outgrowth 
of any other law than that of evolution, but the facts un- 
doubtedly bear us out in our conclusion. 

We have an illustration at our very doors how lan- 
guages have been formed by the loss of the old words and 
the introduction of the new. Emigrants have come to 
this country in youth, and becoming completely isolated 
from those speaking their language, have, after a time, 
forgotten their language. There are others that arrived 
later in life who retained their language, but being iso- 
lated for a long time from those who speak it correctly, 
they can hardly be understood by those that have come 



Man a Revolution 313 

later from the center where the language is correctly 
spoken. And these facts point out to us how the various 
languages originated from the parent language. As the 
families migrated from the common center, and became 
completely isolated from those who spoke the language 
correctly, they lost the inflection gradually until the lan- 
guage they spoke, though it resembled the parent lan- 
guage, became a new language. The evolutionist regards 
all these changes in the formation of the languages from 
the parent tongue as in harmony with his theory, but in- 
fluences have been at work in language making that are 
utterly inconsistent with his hypothesis. 

From the examination of the evidence set forth by 
the various sciences that treat the question of man's an- 
tiquity, we learn that man, in all probability, was intro- 
duced into the world in the full perfection of his powers. 
The evidence is abundant that his appearance was sudden, 
and seems to indicate that he was introduced by a miracle 
just when the earth was prepared for his presence. Man, 
unquestionably, was a nobler being with greater powers 
at the time of his advent into the world, than he is at the 
present time. The facts, as they have been ascertained 
by diligent research, are not only inconsistent with the 
evolutionary hypothesis, but they are in perfect harmony 
with the theory of special creation. Man is a revolution, 
not an evolution. He appeared at once, in full perfec- 
tion, and not by a gradual process of development from 
the lower types of animal life. 



THE ORIGIN OF LIFE 

315 



"No matter how complex the protoplasmic molecule may be, its 
atoms are still nothing but matter, and must share its properties for 
good or evil, and among the rest inertia. Hence it can not change 
its state of motion nor rest without the influence of some force from 
without. True spontaneity of movement is, therefore, just as im- 
possible to it as to what we call dead matter. . . . We are com- 
pelled to admit the existence of an exciting cause in the form of some 
force without to give the initial impulse in all vital actions." — 
Drysdale. 

"It is certain that matter is somehow directed, controlled, and 
arranged, while no material, forces, or properties are known to be 
capable of discharging such functions. ... I believe that it will 
be found that the institution of the series of preparatory changes 
which occur previous to the devlopment of the lasting form and 
structure of tissues can only be accounted for upon the supposition 
of the existence of a power capable of foreseeing what was about to 
happen, and of determining beforehand the arrangement that would 
be most advantageous to the living being." — Beale. 

"Besides the material substance of which the body is constructed 
there is an immaterial principle, which, though it eludes detection, 
is none the less real, and to which we are constantly obliged to recur 
in considering the phenomena of life. It originates with the body, 
and is developed with it, while yet it is totally apart from it." — 
Agassis. 

"It can not be that atoms of albumen, or fibrine, or gelatine, or 
the hypothetical protein-substance, possesses this power of aggregat- 
ing into specific shapes; for in such case there would be nothing to 
account for the unlikenesses of different organisms. Millions of 
species of plants and animals, more or less contrasted in their 
structures, are mainly built up of these complex atoms. But if the 
polarities of these atoms determined the forms of the organisms they 
composed, the occurrence of such endlessly varied forms would be 
inexplicable. Hence what we may call the chemical units are clearly 
not the possessors of this property." — Spencer. 



3* 



THE ORIGIN OF LIFE 

T^HERE have been a great number of theories ad- 
vanced by men of science to account for the ex- 
istence of life on our planet. Darwin began his theory 
of natural selection with a few low forms of life, grant- 
ing a special creation for these low types. Tyndall at- 
tributed life to primordial star dust. Huxley contended 
that the source of life was in Bathybius. He assumed 
that the gelatinous substance at the bottom of the oceans 
was a sheet of living matter. And this substance that 
enveloped the earth beneath the seas was regarded by 
him as the basis of life — a connecting link between the 
inorganic and the organic. But when the seas were 
dredged it was found to be nothing more than deep sea 
ooze. 

Scientists have performed certain experiments in or- 
der to produce life, and have boldly claimed to have pro- 
duced it by spontaneous generation. And it was posi- 
tively asserted that life originates in this way. Evolu- 
tionists clung to spontaneous generation as a forlorn 
hope for many years. But other scientists per formed 
the same experiments with greater care, not only destroy- 
ing all life in the infusia by boiling, but at the same time 
completely shutting out the air, and there was not the 
least appearance of life developed in the infusia. Biolo- 
gists were forced to abandon spontaneous generation as a 
theory to account for the origin of life, and were com- 

317 



318 The Origin of Man 

pelled to adopt the conclusion that life can only come 
from antecedent life. 

In attempting to discover the cause of life on earth, 
scientists have attributed it to various substances and 
traced it to numerous sources. And failing in their 
effort to discover the source of life, they have advanced 
the theory that life came to the earth from some other 
planet. Sir William Thompson suggested that life germs 
might have fallen to this planet on the fragment of a 
meteor. But even if this were true, it would not solve 
the problem of how life originated. This pushes the 
question further back, but does not answer it. It is a 
begging of the question by avoiding it. It has also been 
held that life is inherent in matter. But the condition of 
the earth and its atmosphere at one time were such as to 
absolutely preclude the existence of life on this globe. 
Life must have originated on earth after the earth was 
prepared to sustain it. Evolutionists have sought dili- 
gently in every field for an explanation of life, but they 
have been unable to discover that for which they have 
sought with so much untiring zeal. 



I. 

In more recent years the source of life has been traced 
to protoplasm. And this explanation being of a later 
origin demands a fuller treatment at our hands. Pro- 
toplasm was once held to be a single chemical compound 
of uniform existence. It was regarded as an albuminous 
substance composed of two or three simple substances. 
Scientists assumed the existence of an original life mass 



Origin of Life 319 

from which the individual forms of life were developed. 
And when protoplasm was discovered it was held to be 
this original life mass. Protoplasm wa^ said to be a 
homogeneous transparent jelly without any discernable 
structure. In this simple homogeneous substance lay the 
mystery of all life. Life had unquestionably been traced 
at last to its starting point in protoplasm. All that 
seemed necessary to do, in order to produce life de novo, 
was to make protoplasm by combining the few simple 
elements that composed it. They combined the elements 
in their proper proportions, but failed to produce living 
protoplasm. They could not make living matter out of 
non-living matter. These elements, when combined, 
formed a mere speck of jelly, containing the identical 
elements in their proper proportion, but there was the 
difference between them of the living and the non-living. 
If there had been nothing in the living protoplasm but 
matter, the chemist ought to have been able to have pro- 
duced a living cell by the combination of the chemical 
elements in their proper proportion. The failure of the 
chemist to produce living protoplasm ought to have con- 
vinced evolutionists that the protoplasmic cell contained 
something besides matter. But they were not convinced 
that there was anything in the living protoplasm that 
science could not explain. 

Protoplasm being regarded as the physical basis of 
life it was held that all life, plant and animal, began in 
the same way, all being evolved from this common life 
mass. And biologists confidently assorted that there was 
no difference between the cell of an oak and a palm, a 

worm and a man. They all had their origin from a 
common protoplasm. There could be no difference 



320 The Origin of Man 

whatever distinguished between the protoplasm from 
which these distinct forms developed. But because there 
was no apparent difference in the beginning of their de- 
velopment was no reason that there was no actual dif- 
ference between them. It was true, as far as it could be 
discerned, that "Oak and palm, worm and man, all start 
in life together." The evolutionists made out a strong 
case for their theory. All life began in this simple sub- 
stance. No difference could be distinguished whatever 
in the protoplasm of the most dissimilar plants and ani- 
mals, and therefore they concluded that from the same 
protoplasm all life was evolved. In protoplasm all life 
lay dormant, awaiting favorable conditions to call it 
forth. 

But protoplasm, however, is not the physical basis of 
life, for there is no such thing as undifferentiated pro- 
toplasm. Protoplasm does not exist in dead matter. It 
has baffled all attempts of scientists to construct it. The 
elements of which it was composed were so few and sim- 
ple that it seemed that it could be produced without dif- 
ficulty by combining these elements in their proper pro- 
portion. But there was one necessary element they could 
not add, that of life, and all their experiments failed. 
Protoplasm was found to be the product only of the ac- 
tion of previously existing living protoplasm. 

The great improvement in the microscope in the last- 
few years has enabled biologists to make a more careful 
study of protoplasm. The application of the reagents, 
necessary for the accurate study of protoplasm, coagu- 
lates and to some extent disintegrates it. But the study 
of protoplasm coagulated by reagents clearly indicates 
that it is not a simple chemical compound, but a mixture 



Origin of Life 321 

of substances. It is not a chemical compound related 
to albumen. There are, on the contrary, many different 
compounds existing together, side by side, in protoplasm, 
making up what was formerly supposed to be one dis- 
tinct substance. It is a collection of different substances 
in varying proportions, and not a compound of fixed 
and definite composition. The most numerous of these 
component elements are albumens, globulins, lecithin, 
cholesterin, chlorides, and phosphates. Some of these 
substances are extremely complex, containing hundreds 
of atoms in each molecule. Homogeneous protoplasm 
does not, so far as known, occur in nature. Life, there- 
fore, does not begin with the simple and homogeneous, 
but with the complex and heterogeneous, which is con- 
trary to theory. 

But there is more known of the physical structure of 
protoplasm than there is of its chemical nature. By the 
use of microscopes with greater magnifying powers, it 
has been shown that in this apparently homogeneous sub- 
stance there is a well-defined structure. Protoplasm is 
one of the most complicated bodies of which we have any 
knowledge. It consists of a small amount of firmer mat- 
ter combined with more fluid substances. The firmer 
portions are composed of a complicated network of deli- 
cate threads. And suspended in the interstices of the 
network is a clear watery liquid of varying consistency. 
It is not certainly known whether these extremely fine 
threads interlace, forming meshes of network, or whether 
each thread is distinct throughout. There are large 
colonies of extremely minute granules, scarcely visible 
under the microscope, that move along these threads back 
21 



322 The Origin of Man 

and forth, now grouping themselves in one way, then in 
another, and exhibiting almost ceaseless activity. 

Protoplasm as a mass is made up of little independent 
cells about the two hundredths of an inch in diameter. 
And in these minute cells the structure is more compli- 
cated than already indicated. Each cell contains, besides 
the clear protoplasm, a specially differentiated part called 
the nucleus. In the nucleus there is a repetition of the 
threads, liquids, and granules in a manner even more 
complicated than in the main body of the cell. And in 
addition to these distinct parts, there is found in the 
nucleus a new compound called nuclein. The nuclein 
appears in the form of granules grouped in various ways. 
And the nuclein is not infrequently enclosed in a long 
endless tube, which is known as the nuclein tube. The 
nuclein is the most incomprehensible part of the proto- 
plasm. It contains the properties of the entire pro- 
toplasm, and no doubt there is concealed in it the mys- 
terious something that produces the animal or plant to 
which the cell belongs. In all probability it is the seat of 
the psychical principle which possesses the power to 
transmit to posterity the essential characteristics of the 
species to which it belongs. 

Protoplasm is always the aggregate of individual 
cells, and these cells are made up of at least three dis- 
tinct parts, the cell body, the nucleus, and the nuclein 
tube. There is no living matter simpler than protoplasm, 
and no protoplasm simpler than this cell with the three 
distinct parts. All these structures are necessary in order 
that there may be the simplest form of life. Protoplasm 
has had to be abandoned as the physical basis of life along 



Origin of Life 323 

with the other substances to which the origin of life has 
been attributed. It can no longer be regarded as the 
potter's clay out of which evolution evolves the different 
forms of life. In itself, in its simplest form, it already 
shows the work of the artisan's hand. 

Protoplasm exhibits certain phenomena. It performs 
important functions, and has the power of spontaneous 
motion. It possesses the power of assimilation, and takes 
non-living matter and builds it into a substance like itself. 
It has the power of reproducing its kind. Protoplasm 
is by no means a simple substance, but is rather a colony 
of granules bound together by different substances. It 
has a series of structures built up of distinct parts. There 
are threads, liquids, granules, nucleus, and tubes. Thus 
recent discoveries have completely overthrown the notion 
that the protoplasmic mass is the uniform source of life. 
Protoplasm was apparently a simple compound, and a 
structureless substance, hence it was proclaimed to be the 
primary and fundamental form of life. But protoplasm 
has been found to be a highly complex substance, made 
up of many distinct chemical compounds. It is pro- 
duced by the agency of a previously existing living cell, 
and there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that it can 
be produced in any other way. There is, therefore, no 
such thing as protoplasm in general, which is the basic 
principle of life. There are only distinct forms of pro- 
toplasm. And the protoplasm of different plants and 
animals is as different as the plants and animals that arc 
produced from it. 



324 The Origin of Man 



II. 

When life is traced to its starting point, we find that 
it begins in a microscopic germ cell. The cell is a minute 
vesicle containing protoplasmic matter, fertilized by an- 
other germ cell. The starting point of the individual 
animal is in the fertilization of the maternal ovum by 
the paternal germ cell. In this way there is produced a 
germ cell by the fusion of two single cells. The union 
of two correlated elements is required to produce a per- 
fect individual life. A complete vital entity is the prod- 
uct of two correlated vital principles. Fecundation con- 
sists in the paternal germ cell imparting a reproductive 
principle to the maternal ovum. This process can only 
take place between germ cells of the opposite sex, belong- 
ing to the same species. The exception to this rule is 
extremely rare, and where it does occur in kindred species 
it always results in a hybrid. The origin of each new be- 
ing can be traced to a mere dot in the germ cell. The 
germ cell after fertilization contains an active causal prin- 
ciple which is necessary to the reproduction of the new 
animal. When fertilization takes place there begins 
within the cell the work of the organization of a new 
animal. But prior to this union neither the maternal nor 
the paternal cell is capable of setting up the work of or- 
ganizing a new being. 

The germ cell has an outward transparent covering, 
and in the interior imbedded in protoplasm, lies the 
nucleus, and in the nucleus there is the nucleolus. When 
the spermatozoa of the paternal cell comes in contact with 
the maternal cell, the effect is at once apparent in new 



Origin of Life 325 

vigor and activity. The two pro-nuclei come in contact 
near the center of the maternal cell forming the segmenta- 
tion nucleus. It is now prepared to begin the work of 
organizing a new being. When the two cells coalesce, 
each cell contributes a cellular substance of its own to 
the formation of a compound cell, and through this com- 
bination there is brought into existence a typical form 
and structure of a distinct organism. The first act in the 
cell is to cause an increase of its contents by the inhibi- 
tion of vitalized nutrient matter. The next step in the 
formation of a structure is the enlargement of the nucleus 
of the germ cell. Then there follows the division of the 
cell's interior contents into two equal parts. And the 
original cell is now occupied by two nucleated cells with 
the old wall surrounding them. The cell produces the 
structure by segmentation. The elongated nucleus 
divides itself in the middle into two cells, the two into 
four, the four into eight, the eight into sixteen, and so 
on in like proportion, cells are multiplied almost in- 
numerably as the work of organization progresses. And 
as the cells multiply they are co-ordinated and woven 
into tissue in accordance with the different plans of de- 
velopment suited to the forthcoming organization.* 

All forms of life can be traced back to a single cell — 
a fertilized ovum — and every new cell originates by the 
division of a pre-existing cell. The spermatozoa oi the 
paternal cell penetrates the walls o\ the maternal cell, its 
protoplasm is absorbed in the maternal cell, ami the sper- 
matozoa unites with the maternal cell germinal dot near 
the center of the cell. There is an inhibition of nutriment 



•The Soul.— Collins. 



326 The Origin of Man 

through the walls of the cell, followed by the enlarge- 
ment of the nucleus. The cell being thus supplied with 
the principle of life and material from the outer world, 
it begins to construct a living animal according to a given 
pattern, which it follows slavishly. 

The living cell is an intricate machine, with fine ad- 
justments of parts, and with marvelous powers of turn- 
ing out work. In the cell are all the constituent elements 
and all the far-reaching possibilities of growth. In the 
germ cell lies the power of converting one element into 
muscle, another into bone, another into nerves, and an- 
other into brain. As a result of the fertilization of the 
maternal cell, there is produced an aggregate of cells 
which, by the physiological division of labor, specialize 
themselves for various functions. There are varied re- 
sults from the same cause. Some cells build muscular 
tissue, some construct bone, while still others form nerves. 
The cells are not all alike, judging from the different 
functions they assume in the building of the body. The 
cells assume different functions just as in a social com- 
munity one group of individuals devotes itself to the per- 
formance of one of the duties necessary to the well-being 
of the community, and another group devotes itself to the 
performance of another duty of equal importance to the 
interest of the community. The process proceeds by 
segmentation and division of labor until the completed 
animal is produced. 

The single cell is conceived as the ultimate unit of 
organized matter. The cell has the capacity to unite with 
itself other minute particles of matter, and in this way 
form a larger aggregate of molecules. And evolution- 
ists have claimed that this single cell has given origin to 






Origin of Life 327 

all animated organisms, both plants and animal, and 
through an infinite series of organisms to the human 
race. Spencer says : "What can be more widely con- 
trasted than a newly born child and the small, semi- 
transparent, gelatinous spherule constituting the human 
ovum ? The infant is so complex in structure that a cyclo- 
paedia is needed to describe its constituent parts. The 
germinal vesicle is so simple that it may be defined in a 
line. Nevertheless, a few months suffice to develop the 
one out of the other ; and that, too, by means of a series 
of modifications so small, that were the embryo examined 
at successive minutes, even a microscope would with dif- 
ficulty disclose any sensible changes. Aided by such facts, 
the conception of general evolution may be rendered as 
definite a conception as any of our conceptions can be 
rendered. If instead of the successive minutes of a child's 
foetal life, we take successive generations of creatures — 
if we regard the successive generations as differing from 
each other no more than the foetus did in successive min- 
utes; our imaginations must be feeble if we fail to realize 
in thought, the evolution of the most complex organism 
out of the simplest. If a single cell, under appropriate 
conditions, becomes a man in the space of a few years. 
there can surely be no difficulty in understanding how, 
under appropriate conditions, a cell may, in the course of 
untold millions of years, give origin to the human race."* 
The improvement in microscopes and microscopic 
methods lias shown, as we have already seen, that the 
cell is not the simple thing it was formerly supposed to 

be, and that it does not develop by a series of modifica- 



*Principles of Biology, Vol. 1. pp, 34ft 33& 



328 The Origin of Man 

tions so small that they can not be observed. The cell 
is an intricate, complex machine, with different parts and 
distinct functions, capable of turning out marvelous 
products. This minute, living speck of matter contains in 
it, potentially, all the parts and organs that are produced 
by it. This is illustrated by the spontaneous division of 
the nucleus into a vast number of separate cells, each of 
which plays an important part in the formation of the 
animal body. And the changes are not so minute that 
they can not be distinguished under the microscope, but, 
on the contrary, are vast and sudden. The process by 
which the human body is built up has been as carefully 
observed as the construction of a dwelling-house. When 
the substances of the two parental cells unite, they divide 
and subdivide until the living being is fully formed. And 
in the union of these cells there is sufficient power created 
to cause these changes and the final production of the 
mature structure. It takes no small amount of energy 
to produce these phenomena of motion, inhibition, and 
construction, and maintain them until their work is 
finished. When the nucleated cell divides, the division of 
the nucleus, as a rule, precedes that of the whole cell. The 
cell divides itself suddenly before your eyes. Suddenly 
there come great changes and your one cell becomes two. 
Each of the new cells continues to receive nutriment, and 
the preparation of formed material goes on again. After 
certain development they suddenly divide again, and the 
two become four. And the process of construction pro- 
ceeds in this way until the body is perfected. Le Conte 
admits that the changes in the embryonic development 
are sudden and revolutionary as elsewhere in nature. 
He says: "Most naturalists seem to think that sudden 



Origin of Life 329 

change is inconsistent with the idea of evolution. It may, 
indeed, be inconsistent with any theory now before the 
scientific world; but this only shows that we have not 
yet a true theory of evolution. But others say the con- 
stancy of nature's laws necessitates change by insensible 
gradations. 'Nature,' they say, 'never goes by leaps.' 
On the contrary, although laws and forces are constant, 
phenomena almost always changes by leaps. Meteorolog- 
ical phenomena, such as storms and lightning — geolog- 
ical phenomena, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, are 
paroxysmal. Even embryonic development, the very 
type of all evolution, is paroxysmal always in some of its 
steps, and in many animals in several of its steps."* Pro- 
fessor Le Conte admits everything for which we have 
been contending as to the changes that take place in the 
phenomena of nature. He seems to have been more 
anxious to learn the truth, than to establish a theory. We 
have the highest admiration for his candor and fairness. 
Spencer fails to distinguish between the development 
of an individual of a species from a cell and how the 
species itself came into existence. These are two sep- 
arate and distinct questions. A part is taken for the 
whole. There is no analogy to be derived from the regu- 
larity and uniformity of the process by which individuals 
of a species are produced, as to how the species itself 
came into existence. For us to reason that because a 
germ cell produces a mature individual in a few years. 
that a germ cell in the course o\ untold millions of years 
has developed the human race, is Overstepping the bounds 
of legitimate analogy. Because a man is produced in a 



♦Religion and Science, p, 25. 



330 The Origin of Man 

few years from a germ cell is no reason that, if we as- 
sume untold millions of years, a single cell will, by insen- 
sible gradations through a series of successive changes, 
produce the various forms of life from the lowest to the 
highest. It is true, that every form of life can be traced 
back to a germ cell, not, strictly speaking, a single cell, 
but a cell fertilized by another cell. All the possibilities 
of the future animal exist in the fertilized germ cell, for 
unless this were the case the cell could not produce the 
perfected animal. If the germ cell does not contain, 
potentially, the future animal, there must be an effect 
without an adequate cause. There can not be developed 
from the cell more than was contained in it from the be- 
ginning. And it is as impossible for us to conceive of 
the production of a living germ cell without a living ani- 
mal, as it is the production of an animal without a germ 
cell. Life necessarily comes before organization. Func- 
tions result from structure. The formation of an or- 
ganic body is a vital process, and life must have existed 
before there was an organism. There must have been 
life before there could be an organism so "simple" as a 
single germ cell, hence, we can not understand how a cell 
no larger than a pin head could give origin to the human 
race. 

Whether each new species was created de novo, or 
whether there was created a primordial cell possessing all 
the potency of the world's life from the beginning until 
the present, the sum of the miracle is precisely the same. 
It would require the same power with either method, and 
in both cases it amounts to identically the same thing — 
the production of all organisms. The evolutionist may 
deceive himself into thinking that it is easier to produce 



Origin of Life 331 

the life of this planet from a single germ cell in untold 
millions of years, than it would to produce it de novo by 
special creation ; but it would require just the same ex- 
penditure of energy and the same amount of power in 
each case. 

In the germ cell the future animal exists in all its 
distinctness and completeness, for in a later stage of the 
embryonic development we find that a distinct species of 
animal is the result of the development. And if the ani- 
mal is developed from the germ cell, it must have con- 
tained it in all its distinctive parts potentially. The un- 
fertilized cell does not have the power to develop itself 
into a living form, to say nothing of the power to de- 
velop higher and more complex forms. Whence did the 
the first cell originate? Where did it obtain this invisi- 
ble power to transform material elements into a living 
body? If the first cell had the power to unite to itself 
other minute particles of matter, whence did the cell get 
this power? The cell must have been created at some 
definite time and this power imparted to it, otherwise the 
first cell was not a created thing, but, on the contrary, a 
self-existent, all-powerful entity — a veritable Deity. 

Evolutionists would have us believe that from a sin- 
gle cell all the various forms of life, races, and types of 
animals, in process of time, have been gradually pro- 
duced out of each other in an ascending scale until man 
is finally reached, who is the crown of the evolutionary 
process. But the cell which is necessary to the existence 
of every living being is the product of a previously living 

being. Even the animal form lowest in the scale of being 
can be produced only from germ cells originating in pre- 
viously living organisms o\ similar Structure The 



332 The Origin of Man 

simplest living organisms are thus to science ultimate 
facts for which it can not account except conjecturally. 
There has been no evidence found to show that life is ever 
produced without antecedent life, and there is nothing to 
lead us to believe that it has been produced in any other 
way. The protoplasmic cell has no life of itself unless 
it is touched with already existing life. Before any par- 
ticular form of life can originate there must be a pre-ex- 
isting germ cell belonging to that particular species en- 
dowed with marvelous potencies. There can not be de- 
veloped from this cell what it does not contain. The 
homogeneous, before it can develop into the heterogene- 
ous, must contain the heterogeneous. If the human race 
developed from a primordial germ cell, mankind must 
have been contained in the cell before the process of devel- 
opment began. All animal life owes its existence to pre- 
existent animal life. And it certainly is a stupendous 
assumption to suppose that a simple protoplasmic cell 
could contain within itself all the processes necessary to 
produce all the life on this planet, including the human 
race. But if evolution is true, all the forms of life that 
have ever existed, or ever shall exist, were contained in 
this primordial cell. 

We can trace the various forms of life back in 
thought, according to the requirements of evolution, to a 
first living cell, but what was back of the primordial cell ? 
If life can be produced only from antecedent life, how did 
this first cell originate without prior life? The material- 
istic evolutionists insist that under proper conditions mat- 
ter has produced life. But they have never been able to 
supply these conditions, and are forced to fall back on 
the assumption that these conditions did exist in the 






Origin of Life 333 

earlier history of the earth. Life is constantly appearing 
in new individual forms, but invariably from antecedent 
life. If it were possible to evolve life from matter at the 
present time, it would be convincing evidence that this 
had been done when life originated, but the most skilled 
chemist is unable to manipulate the forces of matter in 
such a way as to cause them to generate life. If life is a 
property of matter, the fact is certainly capable of being 
demonstrated. Evolutionists should demonstrate their 
claim by producing life from matter. If they can not 
demonstrate this fact, they should abandon their claim, 
for their deductions are valueless unless they can demon- 
strate them. If life is one of the properties of matter, 
the fact could not have escaped the persistent scrutiny of 
the scientist all these years. It is a begging of the ques- 
tion to say that life was once a property of matter, but 
that life and matter are now sqDarated in nature by an 
impassable gulf. There is nothing but pure assumption 
to substantiate this claim. But this is a question of fact, 
and it must be substantiated by fact. Matter can not 
possess the property of life at one time, and be divested of 
it at another time. Life is or is not one of the properties 
of matter. If it is not now a property of matter, it never 
was.* 

Matter is not all-powerful and self-sufficient. Life 
never proceeds from matter as its cause, for matter can 
not originate itself, much less create life. All the com- 
bined forces of matter can not produce a single atom oi 
matter. Inertia is a property o\ matter, hence it is in- 
capable of producing any change in itself, it can not in- 



*Matter, Life, and Mind, Moore. 



334 The Origin of Man 

crease in size by expansion. Jt is made up of distinct 
and separate atoms, and is increased in size only by the 
addition of more atoms. And the atoms of matter are 
unchangeable, the} 7 are the same they were when the 
globe existed in gaseous vapor. The atoms of matter 
assume different forms; they are now connected with a 
living body, and again they become separated and be- 
come a part of non-living matter. Matter in whatever 
form it is found is unchanged in essence. It may be non- 
living, or living matter, but it is matter still. We speak 
of living and non-living matter, but strictly speaking, it 
never becomes living. It is merely correlated with life, 
and is not itself alive. It undergoes no change in essence 
in its transfer to an organic body. All the fundamental 
properties of matter exist in organized matter. Until it 
is shown that matter is capable of self-organization, evo- 
lution can not be substantiated. Blind, inanimate forces 
do not construct intricate machines with power to take 
non-living matter and transform it into living matter. 
The germ cell performs a marvelous work in converting 
non-living matter into living matter. And in order to 
explain the origin of life we must discover a force capable 
of constructing this intricate cell machine. 



III. 

Each separate germ cell contains only a part of the 
vital principle required in the formation of a living ani- 
mal. The maternal cell can not set up the organization 
of a new animal without the union of a germ cell of the 
opposite sex; hence, there must be some essential prin- 



Origin of Life 335 

ciple added by this act to the maternal cell. It may be 
more correct to say that by this union of the two cells 
there is brought into existence a new principle, capable 
of bringing into existence an independent being, which 
the single cell was wholly incapable of doing prior to 
this union of their contents. All life, it is true, is built 
up from a single form, that of the cell. It is not, how- 
ever, built up from a single cell, for it is necessary for 
the single cell to have added to it the contents of another 
cell before it can begin the process of constructing an ani- 
mal body. 

The formative principle that co-ordinates the structure 
of each animal is furnished at the fertilization of the 
germ cell. This principle being imparted to the cell, it 
immediately shows signs of great activity by the changes 
that take place in its plasmic cell contents. A miniature 
revolution is set up, which results in a short time in the 
cells severing in twain, and becoming two distinct cells. 
When the fecundated cell separates into two, the vital 
principle is imparted to both, and separates these two 
into four by a similar process. The formation of the 
body is the result of a series of revolutions that take place 
within the cells as they are formed. There is after each 
new division of the cells a slight pause during which 
there is inhibition of nutrient material through the cell 
walls, followed by a new division of the cells. The proc- 
ess of segmentation continues until the body with all its 
complicated parts and numerous functions is completely 
formed. The two cells divide into four, the four into 
eight, and so on, until the entire body is completed by 

the extension of the same principle that divided the first 
cell. 



336 The Origin of Man 

We may learn just here how a living being comes 
into existence. Before an animal can come into existence 
there is, what we may term, a creative act. A definite 
act must take place, a revolution must be started, prior to 
the development of a germ cell into a living being. After 
the two cells have united and there is formed from their 
contents a compound cell, the work of organizing a new 
being is begun. The fecundated germ cell now exhibits 
its marvelous powers, taking the materials at hand and 
building up a body wonderful in its construction of parts. 
This is a miracle in the true sense of the word — a work 
that transcends our comprehension. And it is performed 
by an agent apparently too weak to accomplish such a 
marvelous work. This minute speck of protoplasm com- 
posed of these cells, contains, potentially, the animal com- 
pleted with all its organs, functions, and powers. This 
invisible power that transforms these material elements 
into a body with muscle, bone, nerves, and brain, is 
brought into existence by the union of these paternal and 
maternal germ cells. What is this power that begins the 
formation of a new being in the fecundated germ cell and 
enables the process of life to continue until the animal is 
perfected ? The answer to this important question is not 
far to seek. 

This hidden energy that forms the body was imparted 
to it. It was something outside of itself taking hold of 
its materials and forming a new body. The germ cell 
contains in itself, after fertilization, an active causal prin- 
ciple necessary to the production of the new animal. This 
active causal principle is the psychical entity. The soul 
is the architect of the body. It matters not how complex 
the protoplasmic cell may be chemically, its atoms are 



Origin of Life 337 

nothing but matter, and can not change their state with- 
out the aid of some power not inherent in matter. There 
is a force, however, that operates in nature which has 
never been known to originate from matter. Organic 
matter never exists except as the product of a pre-existing 
psychical entity. The psychical principle is not inherent 
in the mass of matter. It does not exist in the separate 
atoms of matter, but exists only in life. The psychical 
principle is the vital force of life. Matter does not evolve 
the soul, the soul takes matter and builds of it a body after 
its own nature. The initiating and controlling force of 
the organization is, beyond a reasonable doubt, the 
psychical principle. 

Each species has a psychical nature of its own, and 
distinct from every other species. And this psychical 
principle is transmitted from the parent bodies, when 
the maternal and paternal germ cells unite their cellular 
contents. In this way a new being is brought into ex- 
istence. When the two parent cells coalesce, they trans- 
mit the psychical nature of the species to their offspring. 
It might be more accurate to say they beget a new soul, 
and that this new soul builds for itself a new body. The 
bringing into existence of a new being does not require a 
special act of creation by the Almighty Creator. The 
species have the power given to them to reproduce after 
their kind. The soul descends from the parents by tra- 
duction. The power to propagate the species includes the 
power to reproduce the soul. Each species brings forth 
after its kind ;ui animal in all particulars like itself. 

A new individual life can be produced only as a new 
psychical principle is brought into existence by fertiliza- 
tion. Before living protoplasm can become something 
22 



338 The Origin of Man 

distinct from the life with which it is connected, it must 
be brought into that form of life by the action of a psy- 
chical entity. And this psychical agent can not be orig- 
inated by any process of evolution. It must be brought 
into existence by the action of the same kind of psychical 
nature as itself. When correlated vital principles unite 
they form a new being by means of the creation of a new 
psychical principle. Back of the vital energy that builds 
the body is the psychical agent. The psychical agent 
utilizes and controls the forces of matter. It assimilates 
nutriment and builds this matter into living forms. It 
selects the matter it can appropriate to the use of the 
structure it is building, and transforms it into the tex- 
ture and parts of the organism to which it belongs. Evo- 
lutionists have overlooked the sole cause of the existence 
of organic bodies, namely, the psychical principle. It 
is a vastly greater miracle for matter to work itself into 
living organisms, than to be lifted up into correlation 
with life by the psychical principle of that form of life. 
If matter works itself into life, it means an endless mira- 
cle for every new being that is brought into existence. 

The psychical principle is the immaterial part of the 
animal that dwells in the body. And it is this immate- 
rial soul that constructs the body, and determines what 
the future animal shall be like. This psychical principle 
is transmitted to the offspring by the parents at concep- 
tion, and has no existence until after conception takes 
place. And this immaterial principle varies the form of 
the animal, causing it to conform to the species to which 
its parents belong. There is in each new being brought 
into existence, not only a conformity of the bodily struc- 
ture to its species, but, likewise, a conformity in regard 



Origin of Life 339 

to the intellectual endowments that characterize the par- 
entage and the species. And this conformity to type is 
accounted for because the soul builds the body, and not 
the body the soul. This process is just the reverse of 
that advanced by evolutionists. They have contended 
that man's higher faculties are the product of physical 
development, but, on the contrary, the body has been de- 
veloped by the psychical part of the being. There is no 
difference in the matter that is built into various organ- 
isms, but there is a decided difference between the builder 
that constructs the different organisms, and just here is 
the explanation of the difference in the organisms them- 
selves. 

Evolutionists fail to take into account the reason that 
one organism differs radically from another, the fact that 
the producing causes differ. The difference in the psy- 
chical principle accounts for the difference in the organ- 
isms themselves. The body of the animal is formed in 
strict accordance with the involutions of the powers that 
formed it. The unfolding process of the body corre- 
sponds in each case with the nature of the psychical prin- 
ciple. The psychical principle of different species is the 
basal cause of the organic world. The soul of the animal 
builds up the animal body after a fixed pattern. The 
psychical principle possesses the potency adequate to con- 
trol and build up matter into various forms of life, The 
psychical principle of a man builds a man. that of a worm 
builds a worm, and never any other form oi animal. The 
leopard can not change his spots because he is a leopard, 

and must reproduce himself in his offspring. The ani- 
mal body is the per feet symbol of the psychical agent by 
Which it was produced, and which dwells in the body. 



34-0 The Origin of Man 

The oak is but the visible expression of the life that once 
lay dormant in the acorn. The potency that gave the 
tree its texture and form existed in the seed from which 
it sprung. And the reason that the oak differs from the 
palm is because of the difference in the psychical princi- 
ples that gathered their substance from the earth and 
air and built them into their present form. If the psy- 
chical principles of the trees had not been different, the 
trees would have been exactly alike. 



''Read my little fable ; 

He that runs may read. 
Most can raise the flowers now, 
For all have got the seed." 



One kind of life can never become another life of an- 
other kind. Each animal species has power to repro- 
duce its kind, and no further power. The psychical 
principle of the first man, by a process of multiplication, 
has produced the human race. Life has a potency of its 
own independent of matter, and each unit of life has 
power to reproduce itself by coalition with another unit 
of its kind. This is all that has been imparted to it, and 
all that the individual pair can impart is what they have 
received. And, therefore, for the production of a new 
species there must be the creation of a new psychical 
principle to perform the work of building up the physical 
structure of the species. This necessitates a miracle for 
each distinct species, but after this single miracle at the 
beginning of the life of the species, the species is con- 
tinued by the psychical agent. But if evolution is true, 
there must be a miracle for each individual animal, and 



Origin of Life 341 

an endless miracle in the nourishment of the species from 
day to day. 

The vital principles of the animals of the same species 
produce an individual of the species, and in this way an 
endless reproduction is the result. The new principle 
that is brought into existence at the fertilization of the 
maternal germ cell is concealed in the protoplasmic mat- 
ter of the cell, but it can not be seen by the aid of the 
microscope with the greatest magnifying powers. But 
nevertheless we know that it is present, because we see 
the effect of its presence in the development of the ani- 
mal. This immaterial principle is the cause and explana- 
tion of the developed animal. The hidden potter molds 
the various forms of life according to a fixed design. 
There is no way to account for the production of the 
various animal species from the same material substances, 
except on the assumption that the vital principle of these 
animals is introduced into' these substances, and after- 
ward constructs the different animal bodies. Where 
there are such a variety of effects there must of necessity 
be a variety of causes. The fact that they are all formed 
of the same matter is of no importance, inasmuch as the 
psychical principles that construct them are entirely dif- 
ferent from each other. 

There is something more in life than a molecular ma- 
chine. There is back of life and above matter, a psychical 
entity. The psychical principle is the cause oi organic 
life. The building of the body is directed and controlled 
by this principle. The new psychical principle thai is 
brought into existence al conception is the active causal 

energy that manifests itself in the Fertilized germ cell. 

As the process of building the bodily structure proceeds. 



342 The Origin of Man 

new organs and parts make their appearance and take 
their shape from the nature of the animal principle that 
fashions them. The worm is fashioned in the likeness 
of the vital principle that constructed it. And the body 
of the man is the glorious symbol of the human soul that 
built the material elements into their bodily form. The 
hidden potter shapes and reshapes the plastic clay into a 
perfect likeness of itself. The changes that take place 
in the germ cell are in obedience to an internal law of the 
animal's being. The body is shaped and all its parts are 
molded in accordance with the ideal conception of the 
species to which the animal belongs. The essential dif- 
ference between two cells which the microscope fails to> 
distinguish is in their psychical character. One of the 
essential principles of the laws of development is that 
the formed product — the completed animal — is simply 
the outgrowth of the psychical energy that resides within 
the cell. Two germ cells may resemble each other so 
nearly that it is impossible to discover any difference be- 
tween them, and yet they may be entirely different from 
each other because of the different psychical principles 
within them that determines their development. In each 
germ cell there is involved the type of animal that be- 
longs to the species of which the maternal and paternal 
cells belong from which it was formed, hence, there is 
always developed from the germ cell an animal belong- 
ing to that species. The germ cells appear similar to the 
observer, but in reality they are as profoundly dissimilar 
as the animals that are developed from them. 

The germ cell of one species never produces an ani- 
mal belonging to another species. The germ cell of one 
species can not be fertilized by an entirely distinct species. 



Origin of Life 343 

There are a few closely similar species that can produce 
offspring" by crossing, but a hybrid is invariably the 
result of such a cross. These closely allied species can 
take a single step toward the production of a distinct 
species, but here the process is arrested because there is 
lacking in the hybrid a perfect psychical principle. The 
defect is not in the bodily organism, but in the psychical 
principle. If a new and distinct psychical entity could 
be produced, there would be no difficulty in producing a 
new and distinct species. But for the production of a 
new psychical principle there must be an adequate cause, 
a cause sufficient to produce all the species. The germ 
cells of different species have little in common, except 
their form and the material elements of which they are 
composed. They are as dissimilar as the essential prin- 
ciple that pervades them. No matter how nearly they 
resemble, they are as unlike as the animal that is de- 
veloped from them. The essential difference between 
them may not be distinguished for a little time after 
they begin to develop, but because we can not discern 
the difference between them, does not prove that they 
are identical in the early stages of their development. 
The germ cell always produces an animal after its kind, 
and never makes a mistake and produces an animal be- 
longing to another distinct species. The psychical prin- 
ciple belonging to that species actuates the individual 
germ cell and produces an individual animal of that dis- 
tinct species. The fact that the embryonic development 
of certain species is similar is an indication that they were 
created after a uniform plan. Bui notwithstanding ail 
that evolutionists have had to say o\ the similarity oi the 
development o\ certain species, there never has been a 



344 The Origin of Man 

change of one species into another and distinct species. 
And the mere fact of the similarity of their development 
is no proof that there has ever been such a change. They 
do not recapitulate any such process in their embryonic 
development. If we were able to discern immaterial 
things, we would find that the embryonic development of 
these species is as dissimilar as the animals that are pro- 
duced by it. 

IV. 

The fact that the species produce their kind, genera- 
tion after generation, is accounted for by supposing that 
the germ cells are handed on from generation to genera- 
tion without interruption. This is called the doctrine 
of the continuity of the germ-plasm. This is a mate- 
rialistic conception, but is necessary in order to render 
the evolutionary hypothesis consistent with itself. But 
the resemblance of the offspring to the parent animal is 
not inherited through the matter that composes the germ 
cell. The resemblance is transmitted through the psy- 
chical principle. The power to reproduce the species after 
its kind resides in the soul of the animal. And the cause 
that would affect a change in the structural form of the 
future individual animal must pre-exist in the germ cell, 
and no external cause operating on the adult animal can 
have any effect on the offspring except as it modifies the 
germ. In fact, no> change can be made in the future 
animal except by an influence that reaches the psychical 
nature of the parent animal. 

The characteristics of the individual animal are re- 
garded as being transmitted to the offspring by means of 



Origin of Life 345 

the germ cells. The cells of the body are supposed to 
receive an impression from each act that is performed. 
And it is claimed that when the cells of the body become 
exhausted they have the power to transmit to their suc- 
cessors that which they have acquired. The individual 
performs an action, and the character of that action is 
stamped on some cell of his body. The cell that receives 
this impression transmits it to its successor, and so on 
indefinitely. The reproductive cells are supposed to 
transmit to their successors in this manner the charac- 
teristics of the species to which they belong. And in this 
way the species are enabled to reproduce their kind 
throughout their history. But this is an unreasonable 
supposition. The doctrine of the continuity of the germ- 
plasm, which teaches that the cells leave their impressions 
as legacies to other cells, falling into the places that they 
have vacated, is contrary to reason. If the personality 
of the individual was evolved from matter, how does it 
come that the personality remains the same, when the 
matter of the body is constantly changing? The mate- 
rials that make up the body make a complete change, 
perhaps, in one year. In the course of a long life a 
man has been connected with several tons of matter, but 
he himself has not changed. He has maintained his 
identity amid the wear and waste of his body, showing 
that he is different from the matter that has composed 
his body. If the personality resides in the matter that 
composes the body, how can the personality remain the 
same, while the matter of the body is wholly changed in 
a comparatively short period of time? 5 If the soul dwells 
in the body, and is not a part of its material substance, 
there would be no changes in the soul though the entire 



346 The Origin of Man 

body frequently changed. We contend that the explana- 
tion of the permanency of the personality in a changing 
material body is in the fact that the psychical entity re- 
mains unchanged. 

If the cell theory is true, there is no reason, as far as 
we can see, why the material body might not perpetuate 
itself for an indefinite period of time. Its life depends 
only on the materials that compose it, and its perpetuation 
on its ability to assimilate food to sustain its cells. Why 
should it ever cease to live, if it is not destroyed by some 
accident ? The body fails because the soul ceases to per- 
form its functions. There is a limit set to the union of 
the body and soul, and because of this limitation death 
ensues. The body in the living state loses all its parti- 
cles, and although these are replaced by new materials, 
the form is retained from year to year. And the atoms 
that pass out of the system do not transmit their charac- 
teristics to the atoms that come into the system. If the 
matter makes the body with the renewal of the body 
there would be a new personality. The man in his old 
age knows that he is the same personality that he was 
in childhood. He has inhabited several different bodies, 
but he knows that he himself has not changed during his 
life-time. 

The causes that produce changes in the progeny of 
a species are only such as affect the psychical principle, 
not such as affect the material substance of the adults of 
the species. Weismann holds that all the evidence is 
against the perpetuation by heredity of characters ac- 
quired by the individual. He shows that only charac- 
ters born with the individual can be perpetuated by him. 
Evolutionists have claimed heredity as one of the chief 



Origin of Life 347 

factors in their hypothesis, but, if the position of Weis- 
mann is established, it is fatal to the theory. Characters 
that are impressed on the individual by accident, or 
merely external influences are not perpetuated. The 
characters that are congenital, such as originate in the 
germinal matter of the parent, have power alone to af- 
fect the germinal matter of the offspring. That which 
affects the emotions and the imagination strongly, and 
by this means the mental and psychical nature of the 
adult, will affect more or less the germinal matter so as 
to affect the offspring. There could be no variation in 
the species from environment or individual habits ex- 
cept as they affected the prenatal life of the offspring. 

No changes can be transmitted to the offspring ex- 
cept such as arise from causes that affect the reproductive 
function. If a child is born with a hair lip, this defect 
is likely to be perpetuated in some individual of the next 
generation. But a child might receive a much worse 
disfiguration by accident without this disfiguration being 
transmitted to posterity. The modifications that are ac- 
quired by mutilation, use, or disuse, are not transmitted 
to the offspring because they occur in the life-time of 
the individual. And they are not inherited because they 
merely affect the physical, and not the psychical nature 
of the individual. No matter how large the bicep mus- 
cles of the athlete may become by constant training, his 
child inherits no larger muscles. And no matter how- 
small the muscles o\ a man who leads a sedentary life 
may become, his child inherits no smaller muscles. No 
effects produced in the individual during his life-time can 
be transmitted to his children except such as affect his 
psychical nature, lie can transmit only what he himself 



348 The Origin of Man 

has inherited. Heredity produces only that which has 
gone before. But Spencer says in his reply to Weismann : 
''Either there has been inheritance of acquired charac- 
ters, or there has been no evolution." And there is no 
escaping this conclusion. For, if the acquired characters 
are not transmitted, the doctrine of evolution utterly 
breaks down, because it depends wholly on external 
modifications being inherited and transmitted to the off- 
spring. Heredity operates within certain limitations. 
It can transmit inherited characters, but is powerless to 
transmit those that have been acquired. The causes that 
affect the germinal matter are psychical, not physical. 
The cells of the body that transmit the characteristics of 
the individual are in the germs of procreation, and are 
not exposed to external changes. They can only be 
reached through the psychical nature of the individual, 
and for this reason are not subjected to the influence of 
environment and individual habits which are regarded 
as primary factors in the evolutionary hypothesis. 

Individuals of the same family are found to be 
marked by striking peculiarities of structure and ancestral 
traits, which appear and disappear, and then reappear in 
successive generations. The same peculiarity is often 
transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex 
alone, more commonly, though not exclusively to the like 
sex. But there is nothing in atavism to substantiate the 
doctrines of evolution. The fact that a peculiarity is 
transmitted from one sex to the opposite sex can not be 
explained by the assumption that one cell, that of the 
parent possessing this peculiarity, was more vigorous 
than that of the other parent, and hence predominates in 
the offspring produced by their union. The true expla- 



Origin of Life 349 

nation is to be found, not in the vigor of the germ cell, 
but in the psychical principle. Every animal has a na- 
ture of its own, and always develops after its own law, 
hence the development results in an animal of the species 
of which it is a member. But one parent may give more 
to the offspring than the other, because the psychical 
principle of that parent predominates in the conception, 
and largely controls in the formation of the new psy- 
chical agent. The idea once prevailed that the mother gave 
three-fourths to the offspring, while the father gave only 
one-fourth, but, except in furnishing nourishment, the 
mother gives no more to the offspring than the father. 
Sometimes one parent gives more seemingly than the 
other, but the psychical principle of the one predominates 
in the offspring in some manner in the conception that 
impresses the likeness of that parent more than the other, 
but, as a rule, the characteristics of both parents are trans- 
mitted. And some persons will see the characteristics 
of one parent, and some will observe the striking re- 
semblance to the other. Usually, however, the re- 
semblance to one of the parents is stronger than to the 
other. 

If evolution is true, the most striking thing about 
heredity is what we do not inherit. It is only an in- 
finitesimal part of all that distinguishes the parent that 
the child inherits. The animal inherits the instincts of 
his species that tend to preserve life, but the child docs 
not inherit the experiences of the parent (hat would he 
mosl helpful to him. Children begin life just where 

their parents began it, without knowledge and without 

skill, though ihcv have the advantage o\ the accumula- 
tion oi knowledge and modern improvements, But they 



350 The Origin of Man 

are, in reality, physically, intellectually, and morally no 
higher in the scale of being than their parents. Man 
is weak and helpless at his birth, and from the physical 
point of view is inferior to the lower animals. But the 
inferiority of man as an animal is indicative of his supe- 
riority as a man. His superiority is in his mental powers 
and his moral nature, whose possibilities are not mani- 
fested at his birth, but appear later in his development. 
The lower animal inherits its instincts to do whatever it 
does, build a nest, make a dam, or hide from an enemy 
at the cry of danger from the parent. Man can not, as 
a rule, make anything at his first trial, even if he have 
the object before him to imitate. He learns after long 
practice, by doing the same thing over and over again. 
If heredity had any such power as that which has been 
claimed for it by evolutionists, man ought to be able to 
transmit his acquired knowledge and mechanical skill to 
his offspring. This would remove the necessity of the 
child's having to learn, and the parent would have the 
pleasure of knowing that his child would follow his pro- 
fession or trade, and not grow up with an aversion to it, 
and persist in following something entirely different. If 
acquired characters could be transmitted, this would ac- 
tually be the result. But it is fortunate for us that we 
do not inherit acquired characters, for if we did the world 
would be filled with monstrosities after a while. The 
mechanics would be all arms, the scholars would be all 
head, and the farmers would be all feet and legs. What 
a world of chance this would be, if the hypothesis of evo- 
lution were actually true. 

The resemblance of the child to the parent is not in- 



Origin of Life 351 

herited through the physical man, but through the psy- 
chical nature. The real likeness is in the soul. The male 
offspring does not follow the precise type of the father, 
nor does the female follow the precise type of the mother. 
There is always a portion of the female in the male off- 
spring, and of the male in the female offspring. Some- 
times the characteristics of the father predominate, and 
sometimes those of the mother. And often the peculiar- 
ities of a grandparent, or even a more remote ancestor, 
appear in the offspring. The offspring resembles the 
parent, grandparent, or remote ancestor, because there is 
a close resemblance between their psychical natures. 
From the materialistic point of view it is a miraculous 
thing that the species should breed true, and especially 
that the characteristics of ancestors should reappear after 
generations have passed. But when it is understood that 
the characters do not reside in the mere physical part of 
the man, and hence can not be transmitted through the 
mere physical nature, it is not difficult to comprehend 
how there may be the closest resemblance between the 
offspring and his remote ancestors. The inheritance be- 
ing through the psychical nature we can understand how 
a generation or more may pass, and then the character- 
istics of the ancestor reappear in a descendant. 

The cause of the reappearance can not be in the phys- 
ical structure, for such changes take place in the physical 
organism in the course of a few years as to render this 
an impossibility. Darwin says: "After twelve genera- 
tions, the proportion o\ blood, to use a common express- 
ion, from one ancestor, is only 1 in 2048, and yet, as we 
see, it is generally believed that a tendency to reversion 



352 The Origin of Man 

is retained by this remnant of foreign blood."* But it 
is an absurdity to suppose that one part of blood, in more 
than two thousand parts, could retain any such far-reach- 
ing power. Suppose the number of generations be in- 
creased to one hundred, or one thousand, and the amount 
of blood remaining could not be discovered by the micro- 
scope with the greatest magnifying powers, yet the same 
tendency to reversion continues to manifest itself. The 
fact of the matter is that the tendency is not in the blood 
at all, but resides in the psychical principle. An individ- 
ual may resemble an ancestor a hundred generations re- 
moved, when, all the foreign blood has been eliminated 
from the line of descent. The true explanation of the 
reappearance of the ancestral trait is that it is inherent in 
the psychical nature of the being, and reappears under 
favorable conditions. The resemblance between a child 
and his remote ancestor may be in the fact that their 
psychical natures are alike, which accounts for the phys- 
ical likeness between them. Take the example of dogs 
that have been bred for some specific purpose for many 
generations. And they point and retrieve at such an 
early age that, beyond doubt, it is with them an instinct. 
It has become a part of the psychical nature of the animal. 
The young bird when it hears the cry of danger for the 
first time conceals itself, and shows all the cunning that 
has been the accumulation of ages of the experience of 
the species. This knowledge of how to point in the dog, 
and to hide in the bird is in the psychical nature of the 
dog and the bird. And it has been transmitted through 
the psychical principle from one generation to another in 



*The Origin of Species, Vol I, p. 196. 



Origin of Life 353 

the past, and will be transmitted for generations to come, 
because it is inherent with them. 

If there is a lingering doubt in the reader's mind as 
to the truth of our position, we can remove it by show- 
ing that it is utterly impossible for the instincts to be in- 
herited through the blood. It can be shown beyond ques- 
tion that the most wonderful instincts that we know any- 
thing about, namely those of the bee, could not possibly 
have been acquired by habit, or through heredity, ac- 
cording to the requirements of evolution. These in- 
stincts are inherited through the psychical nature of the 
bee. The cell making instinct of the bee is marvelous. 
The cells are made just the proper shape to hold the 
greatest amount of honey with the least possible con- 
sumption of wax in their construction. This skill was 
not inherited from a bee that was a mathematician, and 
had figured out by higher mathematics just the size and 
shape to make the cell, but was implanted in the nature 
of the bee from the very beginning. That we inherit 
through the psychical nature and not through the phys- 
ical, or the blood, is clearly shown by the bees in main- 
taining the life of the colony. The males are non-pro- 
ducers, hence are called drones, their only value being in 
reproduction, as a result of which they perish. The 
females include the queens and workers. The workers 
are undeveloped females, which are reared in smaller 
cells and fed on less stimulating food than that which is 
fed to the queens. The queens are given a highly nutri- 
tious food, which fully develops the sexual organs. The 
queen's function in the colony is to lav eggs, and she 
Usually lives from three to four years. It is the function 
o\ the workers to provide and care for the queen, the 



354 The Origin of Man 

drones, the larvae, as well as > themselves. This work is 
systematically and skillfully accomplished by a division of 
labor, though the workers do not live longer than six 
weeks in the active season. The ancestors of the workers 
never did any of this work. The queens and the drones 
do not work, and, perhaps, never have worked. But 
the workers inherit the ability and skill to perform their 
labors from ancestors that evidently never did any work. 
And the workers do not only perform this ordinary 
work of keeping up the life of the colony, but when occa- 
sion demands, perform extraordinary work. They show 
great knowledge and skill not only in feeding each sep- 
arate larva, and developing from the larvae a drone, a 
worker, or a queen, but should the queen be killed acci- 
dentally, or die in some unforeseen way, when there were 
eggs in the cells, the workers, after making a careful 
search for the lost queen, proceed to create a new queen. 
They take a young worker larva, break down the walls 
of the adjoining cell, and destroy the larvae in these cells. 
They then build a large cell for the young larva, and feed 
her on the more stimulating food in order to develop 
the sexual organs, and in a few days she comes forth 
from her cell a fully developed queen. In this manner 
the life of the colony is perpetuated. This production 
of a queen from the larva of a worker may not have oc- 
curred for a thousand generations, perhaps never in the 
life of their direct ancestors. But the workers know ex- 
actly what to do under the circumstances, and they un- 
derstand just how to go about the work of producing a 
new queen. There is absolutely no possibility of their 
having inherited this instinctive knowledge from their 
ancestors that had performed the same thing. In reality 



Origin of Life 355 

they have no ancestors from whom to inherit this knowl- 
edge and skill. The instinct of the worker in performing 
the ordinary work in feeding the larvae, building cells, 
gathering honey, and in performing this extraordinary 
work, when occasion arises, in perpetuating the life of 
the colony must reside in the psychical principle of the 
bee. It is an innate principle of the bee, and is not handed 
down from their ancestors near or remote. In the work- 
ing bee we have instincts differing widely from its par- 
ents, yet it is absolutely sterile, so that it could not trans- 
mit successively acquired modifications of structure, or 
for that matter, any other acquisition to its progeny, 
because it has none. Here is a case that can not be recon- 
ciled with any theory of transmutation held by evolution- 
ists. The instinct of the bee is not in the blood, but is in 
the psychical principle. And through the psychical na- 
ture of the bee it is transmitted to posterity. 

We find among certain species of ants the same con- 
ditions existing that prevail in the bee colony. There are 
workers in ant colonies that differ widely in instinct and 
structure from the males and fertile females, but they 
can not propagate their kind for they are sterile. Dar- 
win says of these ants : "If a working ant or other neuter 
insect had been an ordinary animal, I should have unhesi- 
tatingly assumed that all its characters had boon slowly 
acquired through natural selection; namely, by individ- 
uals having been born with slight profitable modifica- 
tions, which were inherited by the offspring; and that 

these again varied and again were selected, and so on- 
wards. But with the working ant we have an insect dif- 
fering greatly from its parents, yet absolutely sterile: so 
that it could never have transmitted successively acquired 



356 The Origin of Man 

modifications of structure or instinct to its progeny. It 
may well be asked how it is possible to reconcile this case 
with the theory of natural selection?"* The author at- 
tempts to reconcile the existence of the sterile worker ants 
with his theory, but utterly fails in his effort. The fact 
that worker bees and ants inherit these marvelous in- 
stincts, though they are without either ancestors or prog- 
eny, is inconsistent with the theory of evolution, and is 
utterly inexplicable by this hypothesis. 

That sterile insects inherit marvelous instincts, with- 
out ancestors from whom to inherit them, proves that 
there must be some other way to inherit except through 
the blood. Their existence with widely different instincts 
and structures from the males and fertile females estab- 
lishes beyond a reasonable doubt the fact that what is 
transmitted to posterity is through the soul, and not 
through the physical organism. It is through the psy- 
chical principle that the characteristics of, the species, 
whether insect or man, are transmitted. The species are 
held true by the soul life through countless generations. 
The reversion of type that we so frequently witness in 
our domestic species, and that so completely baffles all 
attempts to produce new species, lies in the psychical 
nature of the animal. And instead of heredity proving 
the truth of evolution, it furnishes the most convincing 
proof against it. It reveals the fact that acquired char- 
acters can not be transmitted to posterity, and establishes 
the further fact that the most complex instincts are trans- 
mitted to posterity through the innate principle of the 
being. 



*The Origin of Species, Vol. I, p. 357. 



Origin of Life 



357 



In the origin of life we observe the operations of the 
three great laws of nature. When the maternal germ 
cell is fertilized by the addition of the contents of the 
paternal cell a revolution is started, and a new animal 
is produced by segmentation. A new being is brought 
into existence by the creation of a new psychical princi- 
ple. And a process of development follows, which brings 
the new individual to perfection in adulthood. The in- 
dividual having reached the perfection of his powers, 
maintains his strength and vigor for a period of time, and 
then decays and dies. The reproduction is always in a 
circle, psychical principle, organic structure, and psy- 
chical principle. The complex organism becomes mature, 
resolves itself into a new psychical principle, and is finally 
dissolved into its constituent elements. The same life 
principle has passed through these cycles of changes from 
the time the species originated. 

We have traced life back not merely to a single cell 
no larger than the head of a pin, but beyond the simple 
germ cell to a psychical agent. We know that matter is 
incapable of self-organization, and therefore there must 
be back of the protoplasmic cell a living active principle 
in order to account for the organization of the material 
elements into a physical structure. There must be a 
living active agent capable of taking the material ele- 
ments and building them into a body, and we find this 
vital force in the psychical entity of the organism. We 
find in our study of the processes by which life is main- 
tained on earth, no evidence that living forms have boon 
produced by evolution, but find that there arc life forms 
that can not be accounted for by this hypothesis. The 
same laws that we have seen were employed in forming 



358 The Origin of Man 

the earth and in developing the species are observed to 
operate in the origin of life. The origin of life through 
the creation of an active vital energy is in perfect har- 
mony with special creation, and gives the true explana- 
tion of the law of the unity of type by which the species 
have been kept true to type for ages. And in order to 
account for the organic world it is necessary to explain 
the origin, not of a primordial germ cell, but how the 
psychical principle of each animal species came into ex- 
istence. 



THE SOURCE OF MAN'S ORIGIN 

359 



"There is no prosperity, trade, art, city, or great material wealth 
of any kind, but, if you trace it home, you will find it rooted in a 
thought of some individual man." — Emerson. 

"There are no thoughts which think themselves, no language 
which has existed except in the speech of the indidivual, no belief and 
no science which has shone like a universal sun above the heads of 
individuals, no constitution which has existed elsewhere than in 
consciousness, the will, the feelings of duty or fear, of the particular 
citizen." — Sigwart. 

"We assert that the existence of that physical universe does sup- 
pose the pre-existence of a mind able to conceive the whole, and of a 
power able to embody the conception. We assert that natural habits 
of reasoning lead the mind, when in presence of such complex yet 
harmonized arrangements, to assume the pre-existence of an adequate 
intelligent cause. We assert that when the intellect is asked to be- 
lieve in the establishment of such an order of arrangements without 
any foregoing thought, it is asked to do in this case what would not 
be asked of it in an ordinary case, except by one who meant to dis- 
regard the ordinary rules of reason. We assert, then, that the heavens 
do declare another glory than that of the men who aided in discover- 
ing the laws whereby their motions are ruled; declare the glory of 
a mind whose thoughts built the heavens when astronomers existed 
not — a mind of which the thought was as much higher than their 
thought as the heavens are higher than the earth." — Arthur. 



360 



THE SOURCE OF MAN'S ORIGIN 

TV/TAN stands at the head of the organic world. He 
occupies an undisputed place at the summit of the 
earth's life. He is, therefore, he became, for there can 
be no being without first a becoming. But how shall we 
account for his existence? We are informed by evolu- 
tionists that he is the result of the operations of the law 
of evolution. According to this hypothesis he ascended 
to his high position from a lower sphere, beginning his 
career as an anthropoid ape. But is it a reasonable sup- 
position that such a being as man, with his perfection of 
form, his sensibilities, his volition, his intelligence, his 
reason, his thought, his self-consciousness, and all the 
functional organs necessary to nutrition, motion, and re- 
production, could have originated by the action of pur- 
poseless forces upon atoms of matter, without the intel- 
ligence to bring these particles of matter together in such 
suitable relations for the purpose of exercising such mys- 
terious powers and vital functions? It does not seem 
reasonable to suppose that a being so highly endowed, 
possessing such matchless powers both of body and mind, 
could be the descendant of an anthropoid ape. Let us 
carefully investigate the question of man's origin in the 
light of what we know of how other things have come 
into existence with which we are familiar. By reason- 
ing from what we actually know about the origin of other 

361 



362 The Origin of Man 

things, we may be able to .ascertain how man himself 
originated. 

A material object is always the expression of an im- 
material thought. The thought must always exist be- 
fore it can be given material form. Every work of art, 
for example, is the embodiment of an ideal. Without the 
idea first taking form in the mind of the artist, nothing 
could have been produced. The conception of the work 
of art in the ideal is an absolute necessity before it can 
be given a material form. The objective world is real, 
and not a mere idea of the mind. But ideas existed be- 
fore realities. The artist sees his picture finished before 
he puts his brush to the canvas; the sculptor sees his 
statue completed before he puts his chisel to the marble; 
the architect sees his building in its final form in his 
mind's eye before the workmen break ground. None of 
the works of art we possess could have ever come into 
existence without having first been conceived in the mind 
of some man of genius.* 

The work of art is but the materialization of a pre- 
existing thought. Back of the rare picture, the noble 
statue, the grand palace, there must have been a creative 
mind. Art means an artist. When looking upon a pic- 
ture of surpassing beauty, or upon a celebrated piece of 
statuary, or upon some splendid cathedral, we speak, not 
inappropriately, of the "creative genius" that produced 
them. The painter, with the marvelous skill of his artist 
Hand, transfers the picture of surpassing loveliness which 
he has conceived to the canvas. The sculptor creates 
miracles in marble as the rough block under the touch of 



*The Philosophy of the Christian Religion. — Fairbairn. 



Source of Man's Origin 



303 



his genius is chiseled into a symmetrical form by the in- 
spiration of a lofty ideal. The workmen who erect 
glorious piles of stone, and brick, and marble, are but 
giving expression in material form in the magnificent 
temple to a preconceived plan wrought out in all its com- 
pleteness in the mind of the architect. The work of art 
is a new creation. 

"Creation, minted in the golden moods 
Of sovereign artists." 



But we do not admire the work of art as much as we 
do the mind and skill that produced it. The work of art 
implies to the beholder that there is some other mind 
than his own. For while it takes some genius to be able 
to fully appreciate the work of art, yet it takes a greater 
genius to produce it than it does to be able to appreciate 
its artistic beauty. The work of art reveals the fact that 
a superior mind has given expression to his thought in 
the production on which the beholder gazes, and ex- 
pressed through it meanings that are suitable material 
for apprehension by the human intellect. The work of 
art implies two intellects, one expressing in the work of 
art intellectual conceptions, the other comprehending and 
appreciating the beauty and symmetry o\ the finished 
product and grasping the idea that is symbolized. While 
the ordinary man can not create these works oi art him- 
self, yet he can appreciate something of their beauty, 
when they have been created by the genius oi the artist. 
When he sees the work o\ art. though he does not possess 
a mind equal to the One thai produced the picture or 
statue, yet he at once recognizes the I'act that it took a 



364 The Origin of Man 

genius to produce it. He does not imagine for a moment 
that it is the result of blind chance. He does not con- 
ceive the notion that the colors which are blended in the 
picture with such marvelous skill were floating in the air, 
and in some mysterious manner, without the intervention 
of the human will, combined themselves in the finished 
picture. It is not true that all we know of a phenomenon 
is the phenomenon itself. If we know the work of art is 
the product of one author, we can form a good estimate 
of the skill of the artist, and learn much of what his 
thought and purpose was in producing the work of art. 
A thing that can be perceived only by intelligence, 
could have originated only through the exercise of simi- 
lar intelligence. It takes intelligence and something of 
artistic taste to appreciate a work of art, and hence it 
must have taken an artist to produce it. It takes a per- 
sonal intellect to comprehend the work of art, and for 
this reason we know that it must have taken a personal 
intellect to produce it. As we fix our gaze on a rare pic- 
ture, two things become apparent to any sane man, if it 
takes a mind to comprehend it, it must of necessity have 
taken a mind to have conceived it and given it its mate- 
rial form. The work of art therefore necessitates an 
artist to create it as well as a mind to comprehend it. And 
while we may learn much of the artist from the product 
of his brush, yet it is not possible to obtain a complete 
knowledge of him by the works he produces. The painter 
is not able to express all he sees in his finished picture, 
the sculptor can not fully present his ideal form in the 
marble, and the architect is unable to give the fullest ex- 
pression to his thought in building materials. The 
thought of the mind is greater than the product of the 



Source of Man's Origin 



36S 



hands. And the man himself is greater than the thought 
he conceives. The artist lives independent of his work 
of art. He conceived it as an ideal before he gave it 
material form. And he himself existed before he con- 
ceived the thought to which he gave expression on the 
canvas, or in the marble. 

Man has the power to create things that have no ex- 
istence, and that never had any existence. But he must 
construct these ideals of the mind from existing mate- 
rials. He has no power to project them from his ideal 
world, and give them material form. He is forced to 
take the materials at hand, and form out of these what 
he conceives in the ideal. The artist creates his picture, 
but not without first having received suggestions from 
nature, or from the works of the old masters. And it 
would be impossible for him to create the ideal forms he 
represents in his masterpiece, had he not received these 
suggestions. The artist, no matter how great his genius, 
has no power to create in the absolute sense. But within 
his limitations he can create that which never had anv 
existence until he gave it material form. Art means 
creation, a mind and hand behind the work of art ad- 
mired by us. And it is the mind and skill that created 
this rare work we admire, and not merely the thing in 
itself. 

Ideas are the result of thought, ami it is the essential 
nature of the mind to think. The man of genius receives 
a suggestion from some source, ami this starts a train of 
thought in his mind, which results in a brilliant idea, and 

the picture, statue, or cathedral, is the materialization o\ 

that thought. We visit St. Peter's when at Rome. and. 

as we admire this magnificent building, we remember 






366 The Origin of Man 

that Angelo was the architect who designed it. In the 
Sistine Chapel we gaze upon the matchless figures in the 
picture of the last judgment, and the thought is suggested 
to our minds that Angelo painted these matchless forms. 
And when we stand before the statue of Moses with its 
strength and perfection of form, the thought comes un- 
bidden to our mind that Angelo was the sculptor who 
fashioned this form. We recognize the fact that there 
could be no cathedral, no painting, no statue, without 
there having been an intelligent being to conceive them 
and give them their present material form. It was a skilled 
hand that fashioned these works of art, but back of the 
hand was the mind that directed the hand in its work. And 
we pay no less tribute to the genius that produced these 
works of surpassing value because he may have been 
aided by the study of nature, or from the contemplation 
of the works of the old masters. And in every work of 
art executed by the skill and genius of the artist, and 
appealing to the senses of the persons who look upon it, 
the personality of the creator addresses itself to the per- 
sonality of those who behold it. 



I. 

We may be able to learn something of the mysteries 
of the works of creation from these reflections on the 
works of art. What is true of the cathedral, the picture, 
and the statue, is also true of the material universe, the 
species, and man. If it takes a personal intellect to 
create from existing materials a work of art, is it not a 
reasonable supposition that the universe with its varied 



Source of Man's Origin 



367 



forms of life, with the intelligent being, man, with its 
marvelous adaptability, with its exact laws, with its 
matchless beauty, with its unspeakable grandeur, and 
with its manifest design, was created by a personal in- 
telligence? As we look on this sublime work of art 
we call the universe, with its various species, and its 
races of men, we are forced to the conclusion that back 
of the universe there was a personal intelligent Creator ; 
back of the earth's life, pre-existing life; and back of 
man a spiritual Being who brought him into existence. 

This is not merely a question of the origin of the 
materials from which the earth and its life have been 
constructed, but the creation of the universe and the spe- 
cies from existing materials. It is not necessary in this 
discussion to consider the origin of matter. It does not 
concern us whether the earth was formed de novo from 
non-existing materials, or from existing materials. Mat- 
ter is composed of atoms no larger in diameter than the 
millionth part of an inch. The entity of matter is not 
found in the compound nor in the organic body, for 
these may readily change, but in the changeless atomic 
unit. But matter as an atom can not be seen by the aid 
of the most powerful microscope in existence. We are 
only able to distinguish matter as it exists in the com- 
pound, or in the organic body, just as we are able to 
recognize life as it exists in the living form. We know- 
fully as much of the ultimate substance of life and spirit 
as we do of matter. We recognize their existence as they 
manifest themselves to us in combinations. Atoms, life, 
and Spirit, as entities, exist alike as forms o\ thought. 

We are compelled to look beyond the atoms o\ matter 

for the cause that has brought them into their present 



368 The Origin of Man 

combinations in material compounds and organic bodies. 
Matter therefore as an entity has no advantage over life 
and spirit. We know matter exists because we see it in 
its compounds, and we know that life exists because we 
see its manifestations. It is not necessary in this dis- 
cussion for us to spend any time in the consideration of 
the origin of matter. We merely mention it to show that 
the materialist is on no firmer ground than his opponents, 
and that he knows no more of matter as an entity, than 
he does of life and spirit. 

We gaze about us upon the numerous animal species 
with their great variety of forms, upon man with his 
perfection of form, and upon the earth itself with its 
rivers, lakes, oceans, plains, valleys, hills, and mountains, 
and recognize the fact that they bear evidence of mate- 
rial form having been given them. They show evidence 
of thought — of thought given a material form. The 
material universe, the species, and man, point to an all- 
wise, omnipotent Creator. It takes a mind to compre- 
hend and appreciate the works of nature, and it must 
therefore have taken a mind to conceive them and to have 
brought them into existence. The universe means a 
Creator. There is certainly nothing unphilosophical in 
ascribing the works of nature to an infinite Creator, when 
we ascribe the works of art to finite human faculties. 
If we attribute the works of art to men, we must at- 
tribute the works of nature to God. They show unmis- 
takable evidence of being the products of similar powers, 
the one being finite and imperfect, the other being in- 
finite and perfect. If we must account for the palace, the 
picture, and the statue by saying that they are the special 
creations of men, then it follows as an unavoidable con- 



Source of Man's Origin 



369 



elusion, from a parity of reasoning, that the universe, the 
species, and man, must be the special creations of Al- 
mighty God. 

It is a well-known fact that physical cause is a defi- 
nite quantity, and hence it can only produce a definite 
and uniform result. If evolution is a physical cause, it 
must produce a definite and uniform result. In the 
geological history of the earth there have been produced 
countless millions of distinct species. The results that 
have been produced in nature have been varying con- 
tinuously, and have been of constantly increasing com- 
plexity. And all these varying results and complex forms 
have revealed the fact that there was being wrought out 
in nature some well-defined purpose. The force that has 
produced these complex forms and varying results has 
operated as no material force has ever been observed to 
act. But evolutionists contend that all the phenomena of 
nature can be accounted for by physical causes. They 
contend that there is no need of purposive cause, or a 
guiding mind. But we can not believe that such varying 
results can be produced except by the determining" will 
and the guiding mind of an Allwise Creator. We can not 
believe that absolute and unmitigated change is the cause 
of perfect order. 

The earth has reached its present high state of devel- 
opment by passing through vast revolutionary changes. 
The species have appeared suddenly in countless num- 
bers and increasing complexity of form at the beginning 
of the great geological eras. And, judging from his 

fossil remains, man himself appeared upon the earth at 

a definite time in the full perfection o\ his powers. How 
shall we account for the introduction oi the species by 

24 



370 The Origin of Man 

sudden impulses, following wide -spread extermination 
as the earth was submerged beneath the seas and was again 
lifted by a mighty upheaval of its crust, unless we admit 
that there is a First Cause to give the needed impulse — 
to impart the necessary energy — at the proper time? We 
have spoken of these revolutionary changes as if they 
might all be accounted for by natural causes, but back 
of these secondary causes, there must be a supreme First 
Cause. There must be a source of energy somewhere in 
order to account for the energy that has been expended 
in nature. All the powers operating in nature could not 
have been evolved from the single potency of gravitation 
in a nebulous globe. Out of some higher realm must 
have come gravitation, cohesion, and chemical affinity, 
for they could not have originated themselves. These 
forces must become exhausted in time unless there is 
some source of inexhaustible supply from which to draw, 
for these forces are not sufficient for their own continu- 
ance. The explanation of all these revolutionary changes 
in nature, by which the earth reached its present form 
and the species were developed, is not to be found in 
natural causes, but in the supernatural. Back of every 
advance step taken in perfecting the inorganic and or- 
ganic world stands the infinite God, who spake, and it 
was done ; who commanded, and it stood fast. 

The material universe with its varied forms of life 
does not fully express the infinite God who made them. 
They give but slight evidence of his omnipotent power. 
The ordinary man is not able to see all the beauty in a 
work of art, and the same is true even of the most gifted 
man in regard to the works of nature. As man beholds 
the works of nature he is able to recognize something of 







Source of Man's Origin 



371 



their beauty and grandeur. And as it takes an intelli- 
gent being to comprehend and appreciate them, we know 
it must have taken a superior intelligence to produce them. 
We can conceive the Creator back of the works of crea- 
tion, though we may not be able to fully comprehend the 
works of his hand. But our inability to comprehend how 
the universe was formed does not invalidate the argu- 
ment. Man appreciates the beauties of the natural world, 
he recognizes the adaptability in the works of nature, and 
must attribute them to a mind that was able to conceive 
them in thought, with a skill and power to give them 
material form. The beautiful pictures that are hung 
for us in nature's gallery with their exquisite colorings 
and perfection of form, cause us to think of the divine 
artist — the infinite God — who made them. And as long 
as the cosmic order continues, the evidence of a personal 
Creator can not be set aside. The works of nature with 
their marvelous beauty, adaptability, and usefulness, con- 
stantly remind us of him, 

"Who stoops to paint the insect's wing, 
And wheels his throne on the rolling worlds." 



Creation by the omnipotent God is said to be unthink- 
able, but, in reality, it is the only possible explanation of 
the universe. The existence of a personal Creator makes 
all speculation unnecessary, and furnishes a satisfactory 
explanation o\ all things. If there is a living personal 
God, we can account tor the inorganic and the organic 
world. Inasmuch as it requires a personality to com- 
prehend them, it must have required a personality to con- 
ceive them — a personality to create them. A personality 



372 The Origin of Man 

is an absolute necessity. We can not comprehend any- 
thing without a personality/ And if it requires a per- 
sonality to comprehend the works of nature, it must have 
taken a personality to produce them. A divine personal- 
ity must have given existence to the universe. The time 
was when the living God conceived the idea of the uni- 
verse. And all existing things, the earth, the species, and 
man, are the materialization of the thought that existed in 
the divine mind. 

There is no consistency in men who dig up a rude 
flint instrument out of a bed of gravel, and immediately 
infer it was made by an intelligent workman, but who 
refuse to see any evidence of a higher power in the work- 
man himself. If it took some intelligence and skill to 
chip these rude flint implements into their present form, 
it must have taken greater intelligence and skill to fash- 
ion the man who made the implements, as the man is 
greater than the chipped flint. If these rudely-shaped 
flints required the hand of man to shape them, man, the 
masterpiece of highest workmanship, must have required 
an infinite Creator. Unconscious purpose can not be con- 
ceived. Purpose implies a mind to conceive and a will 
to execute. Which is the more reasonable, nature the 
outgrowth of intelligence, or intelligence the outgrowth 
of nature? The material universe with its perfect forms, 
remarkable adaptability, and far-reaching laws, can not 
be the work of blind chance. Blind forces do not orig- 
inate power and intelligence. 

It is obvious to the most casual observer that things 
and events are connected with other things and events in 
certain ways. And from our observations we have come 
to believe that all events are bound together in a certain 



Source of Man's Origin 



373 



order of law. Is the cause that produces the changes 
we observe that take place in nature, in the movements 
themselves, or is it separate and distinct from them? Is 
the causation internal to the process of development in 
nature, or is the process merely the successive manifes- 
tation of a cause, external to itself? Evolutionists iden- 
tify the process with the cause, and make the process the 
cause of the existing order. But is it not a fact, that the 
cause is above and external to the process ? A process is 
not a cause, but an effect that must have a cause, not 
itself. The reasoning powers of man that have been de- 
veloped by constantly observing cause and effect — crea- 
tive power and created product — demand a First Cause 
as the sole explanation of the material universe. 

The reasoning powers of man are utterly incapable 
of the conception that the universe was without an origin, 
or that it brought itself into existence by a process of de- 
velopment. Did. the universe have an origin? The 
origin of the universe is conceded by all classes of evolu- 
tionists. But if it had an origin, it must have been 
brought into existence by a cause capable of giving it 
existence with all its various forms of life. The inor- 
ganic world abounds in order as well as the organic, and 
the source of this order must be one conscious will. It 
is absurd to suppose that a mechanical cause, or a "fortui- 
tous concourse of atoms," could account for the order 
and adaptability in the organic and inorganic world. 
There must be creative power and intelligence to account 
for this exact order and perfect adaptability we observe 
in nature. The will of God is the creative energy o\ the 
universe, being uniform and permanent in quality, hut 
expressing itself in an infinite variety o\ ways. But the 



374 The Origin of Man 

will of God that supplies the creative energy is not a part 
of the universe. The supernatural denotes cause outside 
of and above nature. We can no more identify God with 
the process by which the universe has been brought into 
existence than we can identify the artist with his paint, 
brush, and canvas. The universe was caused not by the 
"reign of law," but by the reign of God through law. 



"Back of the loaf is the snowy flour, 

And back of the flour, the mill ; 
And back of the mill are the wheat and the shower, 
And the sun and the Father's will." 



There is evidence of design seen in every part of the 
organic world. Seen in the humblest insect that flies in 
the air and the most gigantic beast that treads the earth ; 
seen in the meanest plant that runs upon the ground, and 
in the monarch of the forest that lifts its branches into 
the clouds; seen in the forces which govern the atoms 
that float in the atmosphere and the laws that control the 
planets as they revolve in their orbits. Creation shows 
a marvelous adaptability to purpose. That the universe 
could have originated itself can not be believed for a 
moment by an unbiased mind. This is an orderly world 
in which we live. This order addresses itself to us as 
intelligent beings who are able to comprehend nature. 
And if it requires a mind to comprehend it, it must have 
required a mind to produce it. In all our remodifications 
of nature, the cause is a conscious will. And if this is 
true of man's creations, why is it not also true of the ex- 
isting order? Why not a conscious will back of nature? 
The teleological argument appeals to the better judgment 



Source of Man's Origin 



375 



of man, and to the unbiased mind it is conclusive. Rude 
flint implements found in old gravel beds, pictures of 
animals traced on ancient caves, hieroglyphics carved on 
ruined walls, are at once admitted, even by materialists, 
to be the work of intelligence. And when we see in na- 
ture, symmetry, order, and adaptability, is it not reason- 
able to conclude that the works of nature are also the 
result of intelligence? The argument from design satis- 
fies the reason. It accounts satisfactorily for both the in- 
organic and the organic world. 

When the materialistic evolutionist is pressed to ex- 
plain the origin of the universe, he answers that its origin 
is an "insoluble mystery." But the universe must have 
a correlative and complement in the unseen. It is an ab- 
solute necessity, made so by the law of the conservation 
of energy. The visible can be explained only by refer- 
ence to the invisible. The science of geology has demon- 
strated a beginning for the universe in time. And the 
changes that are going on constantly about us indicate 
that it will have an end. There are dead and dying- 
worlds in the heavens above us. And it is only a ques- 
tion of time, until all the worlds that make up our solar 
system are dead. And these worlds will then be resolved 
into their original elements. These facts necessitate an 
unseen power, an invisible universe, out of which the 
visible universe must have originated, and to which its 
energy is constantly returning. Unless it is admitted 
that the universe originated in an intelligent unseen power 
outside o\ itself, one of two conclusions is inevitable, 
cither there is no material universe, and there is nothing 
but mind and ideas, or the universe is eternal. As long 
as we retain our common sense, we can never accept the 



376 The Origin of Man 

idealistic philosophy. And that the universe is not self- 
existent, and therefore not 'eternal, everything goes to 
prove. The conclusion is forced upon us that the uni- 
verse had its origin in an unseen power outside of itself. 
The universe came into existence by the successive acts 
of a creative will. It is impossible for us to comprehend 
power without a guiding mind, power without a deter- 
mining will, power that acts without volition. It is im- 
possible for the human mind to comprehend unconscious 
purpose. Purpose implies intelligence to form it, and 
will and power to execute it. And it is far more reason- 
able, to the ordinary mind, to regard the visible universe 
as the outcome of intelligence, rather than intelligence 
the outcome of material atoms. 

Every effect implies an adequate cause. And every 
combination of means in order to attain a definite end 
implies intelligence. In order to escape the doctrine of 
design, the universe must be referred to necessity, or to 
chance, both of which are contrary to sound reason. Sup- 
pose a man who is unfamiliar with modern improvements 
should inquire as to the source of that electric light sus- 
pended yonder above the street. He is informed by the 
person of whom he makes the inquiry that the light 
comes from the electric light plant. The man goes to 
the power house and asks the electrician the source of the 
light, and is told that the dynamo generates the elec- 
tricity which produces the light. But he does not take 
this as a final answer, and asks where the dynamo ob- 
tains the energy it converts into electricity. He is told 
that this energy comes from the steam generated by the 
boiler in the engine-room. He then interrogates the en- 
gineer as to the source of the steam^ and receives the in- 



Source of Man's Origin 



377 



formation that it is generated from the coal that is being 
used in the furnace. He consults the geologist as to how 
the coal obtained its heat, and is told that the coal is the 
stored-up sunshine contained in the vegetation of past 
ages of which the coal was formed. The man learns that 
the electric light shining above the street yonder owes its 
light to the great source of light, the central sun. For 
the origin of the universe, there is required a great First 
Cause, whose supreme will is the ground and source of 
the working force of nature. The conservation of en- 
ergy demands that there be an infinite source of all en- 
ergy. When we trace the forces operating in producing 
natural phenomena back to their original source, we trace 
them back to Almighty God, the great center of the uni- 
verse. 

Even on the principle of evolution, no lower power 
could have produced the universe than the mind that has 
been evolved from it. If it were otherwise, there would 
be evolved from the universe that which was not involved 
in it. And the evolution can never be greater than the 
involution. Suppose, even, that thought proceeded from 
a certain configuration and arrangement of the brain. 
Who contrived these nice combinations of matter so that 
they formed a thinking machine? Does not a compli- 
cated, intricate machine like the brain imply an inventor? 
All other machines have back of them an inventive mind, 
and why not a thinking machine also? The finite mind 
demands an infinite mind. The creative power that pro- 
duced the human mind must have been as much greater 
and more intelligent as the universe excels the inventions 
of men — as the mind excels the machine it invents. 

In order that there be a creation, there must be a pri- 



378 The Origin of Man 

mary self-existent spirit whose will is supreme. There 
must have been back of and 'above matter an eternal en- 
ergy that acted upon its atoms and produced the inor- 
ganic and organic world. But what guided and con- 
trolled this energy? There must have been back of this 
energy a guiding will to control it and direct its opera- 
tions in the formation of the universe. That eternal 
energy is the Almighty, that guiding will is the infinite 
God. From Almighty God, a universe of matter. Mat- 
ter, the product of mind. The material form, the out- 
growth of the immaterial spirit. If man is only a com- 
pound of matter, how is it that this matter that did not 
think yesterday, thinks to-day? Who has given matter 
that which it did not formerly possess? If the spirit and 
the body are two distinct substances, who combined them 
in such exact and mutual relations? Matter can not as- 
sume a definite form without the aid of spirit. Matter 
can not think. It can not act for itself. Inertia is a 
property of matter. Matter can not start motion, nor 
can it stop it, when it has been started. If there is noth- 
ing in the universe but matter, what caused matter to 
perform the miraculous work of producing the inorganic 
and the organic world? Nature, as we look upon her 
present forms, gives evidence of being the result of 
thought — thought given a definite form. If the work 
of art is not the result of a "fortuitous concourse of 
atoms," but means an artist who first conceived, then ex- 
ecuted it, the works of nature must mean an infinite 
Creator that caused them to exist, and they can not be 
the result of mechanical forces. What is more reason- 
able than, that the immanent God should give existence 
to the universe ? 



Source of Man's Origin 



379 



The theory of special creation is infinitely more ra- 
tional than the hypothesis of evolution. It avoids the 
absurdity of making endless change the cause of perfect 
order. It provides in the will of God the only source 
of power known to man in the ordinary experiences of 
life. It makes the "promise and potency" of all things 
reside, not in the diffused atoms of a vaporous globe of 
fire mist, but in the will of an infinite Creator. Evolu- 
tionists content themselves altogether with the material 
universe, and entirely ignore the power of the unseen 
and spiritual. We find in the unseen and spiritual the 
cause of all changes that take place in the realm of life. 
It is the personality behind the work or deed that gives 
it force. History is but a record of the changes of per- 
sonalities. Great personalities have stamped themselves 
on the age in which they lived. Great personalities have 
brought about changes, political, social, and religious. 
And the supreme personality, the living personal God, is 
the sole producing cause in nature. He called the uni- 
verse into existence, and has carried on the works of 
creation from the beginning until the present time. We 
explain the order of the universe by the assumption of a 
personal God. "In the beginning God created the 
heavens and the earth." 

If there is an infinite and eternal energy from which 
all things proceed, that energy must be the essential and 
determining factor of everything in the universe. And 
it is irrational to contend that this energy is unknown 
and unknowable. We know of the existence of a force 
only as we observe the manifestations of its power. And 
the moment we witness the manifestation of that force, 
that instant it becomes known. Cod may in a sense be 



380 The Origin of Man 

unknown to the materialist, in that he is unable to com- 
prehend him, but he is not unknown for all about him are 
seen the manifestations of divine power. "The heavens 
declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his 
handiwork." When Spencer admits that there is an 
eternal energy back of the present order, he admits the 
existence of such a being as God is conceived to be, 
though he does not know him in the sense of compre- 
hending him. But he does know him in the sense of 
recognizing his handiwork in nature, even if he does fail 
to recognize God back of this eternal energy as the true 
source of natural phenomena. 

But grant that to the philosopher God is unknown 
and unknowable, and the fact does not militate against 
his actual existence. For thousands of years men walked 
the earth and knew nothing of the existence of the law 
of gravitation. The fact that men were ignorant of its 
existence and power was no proof that it did not exist 
and that its power was not felt in the universe in that 
age. The ordinary man does not comprehend the genius 
of the artist who painted the picture he so greatly ad- 
mires, but he appreciates its beauty, and knows that the 
artist lived and wrought by the masterpiece he left be- 
hind him. It is not necessary for him to comprehend the 
genius of the old master, nor for him to understand the 
details of the work by which the picture was produced. 
The masterpiece speaks for its author, and he measures 
his genius by the product of his skill. But doubtless there 
are men who can see no beauty whatever in the works 
of the masters. They look upon their masterpieces with- 
out being able to see any evidence of genius. They have 
no appreciation of art, but this is no evidence that there 



Source of Man's Origin 381 

is no beauty in the picture. It does not prove that the 
artist was not a genius, because some men fail to recog- 
nize the fact. It is folly to hold that a thing can not be 
because we are not able to comprehend it. Men can 
never reach a position where they can decide with infal- 
libility what can and can not be. And no man has the 
right to speak for the rest of mankind as to whether God 
can be known, or whether he is unknowable. What may 
be unknown to the philosopher, may be known to some 
man much less highly endowed. The vision of the 
philosopher may be obscured by his philosophy, while the 
humbler man sees with an unimpaired vision. 

The human mind, as it considers the origin of the uni- 
verse must reach the conception of an infinite God, who 
is the Creator of all things. And the mind is forced to 
reject the theory that assumes that the earth with its 
varied forms of life was evolved out of primordial mat- 
ter, which was operated upon by certain fixed laws with- 
out any special interposition of creative power. The 
mind grasps the fact that the all-important determining 
factor in the universe is an omniscient, omnipotent, per- 
sonal God. The living, personal God is the necessary 
center of the rational universe. Matter has no real effi- 
ciency in itself. Efficiency is only to be found in mind. 
The changes that have taken place in nature were caused 
by mind back of nature and outside of physical changes. 
The infinite mind first conceived the present order, and 
then gave it an existence. The ultimate cause and source 
of all things is God. Logically, we are compelled to as- 
sume either the eternal existence of the universe, or that 
of the Creator. In the presence of all the facts that have 
been adduced, the account given of creation by Closes in 



382 The Origin of Man 

the Book of Genesis, is not only probable, but in the high- 
est degree reasonable. It ' accounts better for all the 
phenomena of nature, than the hypothesis of evolution. 
Where philosophy utterly fails us, revelation meets us 
with an account of creation which is adequate and reason- 
able; and the more carefully it is studied, the more ra- 
tional it appears and the more irrefutable does it prove 
to be. That the universe came into existence by special 
creation is vastly more probable than the assumption that 
it is the product of infinitesimal changes wrought by the 
processes of evolution during untold millions of years. 



II. 

It must be admitted that man not being self-existent, 
therefore eternal, must have been brought into existence 
in some manner. But man could not have come upon the 
earth by any of the processes of evolution. There is in 
man a spiritual element in which the lower animals do 
not share, a nature that partakes of the infinite and divine. 
Man was not developed from an ape ; he must have had a 
higher origin. And the hypothesis of supernaturalism 
is the only reasonable theory for his origin. For the 
origin of man we can find no adequate cause except in 
the unseen universe. Without the aid of the spiritual, 
the material can neither begin to be, nor continue to ex* 
ist. It is the spiritual principle that causes nature to take 
on its various forms, just as it is the psychical principle 
that causes the animal to come into existence. In a 
larger way the spirit has given form to nature, produc- 
ing the universe with its laws and adaptability. Matter 



Source of Man's Origin 383 

can not be completely divorced from spirit. Nature is 
what it is, not because it has been constructed by forces 
and energies, but by thought, which has arranged it and 
articulated it into a coherent and rational form. The 
only concrete term that can convey to us the creative 
mind, is God. And the real creation of God is spirit. 
Matter has no independent being. But spirit exists inde- 
pendent of matter. Matter is a mere abstraction until 
mind has made it concrete by investing it with qualities 
and imparted form to it. The seen can be explained only 
by the unseen. 

For the origin of man, gifted with reason, possessing 
the power of volition, and endowed with creative genius, 
there was required a creative act of a being above nature, 
whose supreme will is not only the source of natural law, 
but the working force of nature itself. Living animals, 
in the very nature of organic formations, can not come 
into being from inorganic matter without the aid of a 
creative power capable of forming such structures and 
possessing the requisite power to transfer to such organ- 
isms the vital energy necessary to make them living, 
active beings. For each distinct species there was created 
a psychical agent capable of taking the material elements 
and fashioning them into an individual animal with dis- 
tinct parts and separate organs after a pattern which it 
slavishly follows. And the only way to account for this 
psychical entity, with the power to form an animal with 
parts adapted to definite ends and to perform important 
functions, is in the assumption that it originated by the 
creative act of an infinite Creator. 

The origin of man can not be accounted for by the 
hypothesis of evolution. The hypothesis of special crea- 



384 The Origin of Man 

tion is the only reasonable theory for his origin. The 
formation of such a being' as man, with his matchless 
powers of body and mind, could not have taken place 
without prior life, thought, and purpose. If the immortal 
creations of the chisel require a sculptor, does not the 
human form divine require a Creator ? The idea of man's 
being the product of the evolutionary process, without a 
guiding, creative, definite purpose, is irrational. Man 
must have been produced by the direct creative flat. The 
"promise and potency" of life resides in the will of the 
Creator. When in his infinite wisdom he conceived the 
purpose of creating man, he had but to speak, and it was 
done; to command, and it stood fast. It is no greater 
tax on the divine power to create all the species, than it 
is to create a single form of the lowest type. The power 
that can create life in a low form can create all life. Why 
should we picture the infinite God as a passive spectator 
of the operations of certain fixed laws, which he had im- 
posed on nature? Admitting the existence of God, as 
we must, what reason have we to suppose that he would 
evolve man out of the lower animals, when he could speak 
him into existence at once? It would seem that speaking 
him into existence would be more in harmony with our 
conceptions of the acts of a divine Sovereign, than to let 
nature evolve him out of the lower animals. 

Man is not an animal, he is a man. He belongs to 
a higher order of beings, and can not be classed with the 
animal species. Man, it is true, has a material body, but 
the body is no more a part of the real man, than the house 
in which he lives is a part of him. Man, as the crowning 
work of creation, stands alone, and refuses to be classified 
with the brute creation. His place in nature is fixed, not 



Source of Man's Origin 385 

arbitrarily, but by virtue of his surpassing endowments 
of mental and spiritual power. Man is what he is be- 
cause the spirit that animates him differs in essence and 
power from the vital principle that animates all the other 
beings that dwell on the earth. In personality we find 
the powers that distinguish man from all other earthly 
creatures. It is personality that constitutes him a true 
individual, personal self. Personality is the fundamental 
fact, the source of all perception, the basis of all thought. 
Personality is a fixed point in a world of change. Per- 
sonality is the groundwork of all knowledge. If man 
is not a personality, there is no possibility of any kind of 
knowledge. The universe is reduced to a blank. But 
all human observations imply an ego. Man knows the 
ego that thinks and wills and feels is himself, and he 
recognizes the fact that every other man possesses a simi- 
lar selfhood. The self as a unit stands apart from the 
body and thinks. Thinks about its own body, other be- 
ings like itself, and the material universe. Conscious- 
ness of self -existence is the first and basal act of mind. 



"The baby new to earth and sky, 

What time his tender palm is pressed 
Against the circle of the breast, 
Has never thought that 'this is I.' 

But as he grows he gathers much, 
And learns the muse of T and 'me,' 
And finds 'I am not what I see, 

And other than the things I touch.' 

So rounds he to a separate mind 
From whence clear memory may begin, 
As through the frame that binds him in 

His isolation grows defined." 
25 



386 The Origin of Man 

The body is an objective organism controlled by the 
ego. The body is a material thing made up of matter; 
the ego is an immaterial thing made up of spiritual ele- 
ments. The psychical principle is the tie that binds the 
unconscious instrument and the conscious self together. 
The body is one thing, and has its limitations, the ego 
is something entirely different. The demand for a visi- 
ble self without a body is to assume that the ego is a mass 
of matter, for only such is capable of coming into the 
range of vision. The entity of matter is so small that it 
can not be seen any more than the personal entity. The 
body is the servant of the ego in the same way that the 
organs of the body are the servants of the body. And 
man a personality demands a personal God to give him 
being. 

Man, a personality, can not be evolved from that 
which is without personality. If man, the highest prod- 
uct of evolution, is the effect of that which is destitute of 
mind and consciousness, the effect is greater than the 
cause that produced it. There is contained in the effect 
that which was not in the cause. Man is vested with a 
personality by that which possesses no personality. Non- 
living matter produces living matter. An unconscious 
process evolves from dead matter a living, feeling, think- 
ing, willing being. This is unthinkable, hence, can not 
be true. If man is more than an animal — a spiritual be- 
ing — he must have been brought into existence by a spir- 
itual being. Matter can not produce spirit. It must 
produce its kind — matter. Materialists are consistent, 
when they deny to man a spiritual nature, and evolve him 
from matter with all his higher faculties. But unless 



Source of Man's Origin 387 

there is a real man — a spiritual entity independent of the 
physical man — there is no God. If the whole of man is 
evolved from material atoms, the power back of evolu- 
tion can not be a personal God. If man is evolved from 
matter, there is no God. There is absolutely no room for 
half-way measures. Either the doctrines of materialists 
are true, or the theory of special creation. Admit that 
man is a personal, spiritual being, and you must concede 
a personal God to account for him. Destroy man's spir- 
itual nature, and you destroy God. There is no personal 
God unless man is a person. Obliterate the personality 
of man, and you at once destroy the personality of God. 
Admit the personality of man, and you must have a per- 
sonal God to account for his existence. 

But man is a personality. He dwells in a body, but 
is distinct from his body. He clearly recognizes this fact, 
and constantly speaks of his body as a thing apart from 
himself. He says my hand, my foot, my head, my heart, 
my brain, my mind, my thought, my idea, my plan, my 
purpose. He does not speak and act as if he were acted 
upon by some irresistible power outside of himself. He 
does not conduct himself as if there were within him 
forces that were compelling him to do as he does, regard- 
less of his personal choice. He is free to choose for him- 
self, and is conscious of the fact. Man is pre-eminently 
free, exerts the superior powers with which he is en- 
dowed, and exercises dominion over nature. Man has 
subdued the earth, conquered the forces of nature, made 
her laws to serve him, and wrought all the grandeurs of 
history. Does headship and dominion extend no farther 
than this earth? Is the universe beyond without a head? 



388 The Origin of Man 

If man is the highest being in the ascending order of in- 
telligent beings, why is it that he has stopped in his de- 
velopment so far short of perfection? Man, the real 
man, is not and can not be the product of evolution. Man 
is a spiritual being, and as such must be the offspring of 
a spiritual being. In self-consciousness man has that 
which no cosmic process can produce. Man is not and 
can not be the result of any cosmic process. Man, the 
spiritual being, is not the offspring of nature. The real 
man, the essential principle, is not the result of untold 
millions of years of development, but he is the result of 
a special creative act. 

All animal life on earth to-day owes its existence to 
parents. And man is no exception to this rule. Imagine 
your ancestors, seated, rank above rank, in some vast 
diamond-shaped coliseum. Your immediate parents sit 
nearest you, making up the first line, above them your 
grandparents, above them your great-grandparents, and 
above them your great-great-grandparents. The ranks 
lengthen as they recede from you, until the greatest 
breadth of the diamond is reached, and then gradually 
narrow until there sits in the last seat at the highest point, 
a single pair, the first parents. But there were no par- 
ents for these first parents. From whence did they come? 
The first parents came from the fashioning hand of God. 
We have seen that in the origin of an individual life that 
there is a creative act, as it were, when the maternal 
germ cell and the paternal germ cell unite in the produc- 
tion of a new psychical principle, which takes the mate- 
rials at hand and builds for itself a body after the type of 
life to which it belongs. And the first parents were 



Source of Man's Origin 389 

brought into existence by the creative act of the living 
God, who made them living souls. Man was not brought 
into existence from the earth, though these elements enter 
into his bodily structure, but as a living spirit he was 
created by a pre-existing spiritual being, the infinite God. 
Man, in his body, is of the earth ; in his vital nature, he 
is of animal life ; but in his spirit, he is of God. There is in 
man a spiritual nature analogous to the divine, united to 
a corporal frame constructed on the same general type oi 
the higher animals. But the real man, the spiritual ele- 
ment that dwells in the body, is neither the product of 
evolution, nor is it subject to it. Evolution can have 
nothing to do with the world of spirit, which is above the 
world of sight and sense. In every man there is an 
eternal reality that did not arise out of endless change, 
and can not be destroyed through change. The spirit of 
man is a special creation, placed in union with a mortal 
body for a temporal purpose. And instead of man's being 
evolved out of the lower animals, and his higher faculties 
being developed from the instincts common to animals, 
he was without life until his soul and spirit came from 
God. Man is a spiritual being created for a separate ex- 
istence from matter, but united for a time with a material 
body. God is the Father of our spirits. The Almighty 
created the psychical entity in the first man that has 
given rise to the human race by a process of multipli- 
cation. 



390 The Origin of Man 



III. 



If man is a special creation, he appeared in the world 
at a definite time, perfect and entire, possessing all the 
characteristics of the now living man. If the declaration 
of the inspired word is true, "I have made the earth, and 
placed man upon it;" we can trace the ancestry of man 
back not only to the cardinal head of the race, but still 
further back to its true source. The Jews traced their 
race back in a direct line to the patriarch Noah. And, 
beginning with father Noah, we can trace our ancestry, 
with theirs, back to the progenitor of the race. "Noah, 
who was the son of Lamech, who was the son of Methuse- 
lah, who was the son of Enoch, who was the son of Jared, 
who was the son of Malleel, who was the son of Cainan, 
who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who 
was the son of Adam, who was the son of God." Man is 
the offspring of God. And humanity will agree with the 
sacred Scriptures that: "There is a spirit in man, and 
the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him under- 
standing." 

The Almighty took plastic clay, and molded it into 
the form of man. God breathed into this lifeless form 
the breath of lives — the animal life and the spiritual life 
— and man became a living soul. Here was non-living 
matter becoming living matter. This was done by a 
creative act. Man was created by the hand of God, and 
given a body, soul, and spirit. Man is the last act of 
creation, the highest and noblest work of his Almighty 



Source of Man's Origin 391 

Maker. His body was formed from the dust of the 
ground. It was formed of common matter like the rest 
of animated nature. His soul was not unlike that of the 
highest type of the animal species. But his spirit was 
immortal, that which no animal possesses. The body of 
man, as it lay prone upon the ground, was symmetrical 
in form, divinely fair in appearance, but it was lifeless. 
The Almighty stooped and breathed into this lifeless body 
the breath of lives, and by his spirit infused a spirit en- 
dowed with immortality. Here was a new order of be- 
ing, an immortal spirit inhabiting a mortal body. 

The construction of man's body out of the dust of the 
ground would seem to indicate that his physical organism 
was formed of elementary matter without any previous 
preparation in organic forms. The non-living matter in 
man's body became living matter, but the non-living 
matter became living matter by the touch of a living 
being. A non-existent being becomes a living soul. Man 
is not an orphan in the universe, but the child of the liv- 
ing God. The real man is the inspiration of the Al- 
mighty. The Everlasting God is his father. It is true, 
that in his physical structure he is the child of his mother, 
the earth, but in his spiritual nature he is the child of 
his spiritual father, the infinite God. A high rational 
and spiritual nature was conferred upon man by the in- 
breathing of the Almighty. His spirit is distinct from 
the mere animal life. Man was the head of life on earth, 
the crowning triumph of creation, the wonder and glory 
of the universe. Man proceeded from God and partakes 
of the immortal nature of his divine Father. He came 
into existence suddenly in the full perfection of his 



392 The Origin of Man 

powers, as Minerva sprang full-grown from the brain of 
Jove. 

The first man rose from the dust of the earth and 
stood amidst the luminous loveliness of Paradise with 
the breath of the divine dilating his nostrils, and the 
image of the eternal upon him. Man crowns the long 
series of animal creations, the highest order of being 
that had ever walked the earth. He is a new order of 
being, with new equipment, having dominion over the 
lower order of beings. He stands alone, above all the 
works of creation, giving them names according to their 
several natures. Last of all man appears in the image 
of his Almighty Maker. He had the physical powers of 
a perfect man, without defect and deformity. The sub- 
lime things of earth are seen now only by the man of 
genius, but the first man saw them face to face. The 
world is divine now only to the gifted, but it was divine 
then to whomsoever looked upon it. Man stood bare 
before it all. He saw and understood without teachers, 
for to him knowledge was intuitive. All his powers were 
in delicate balance. He had the physical powers of a 
perfect man. His body was fashioned by the skilled hand 
of God, with its hidden susceptibilities, wonderful com- 
binations, exact mechanisms, and exquisite relations. In 
face and form, he was an ideal of grace and majesty, with 
strength, agility, beauty, firmness, and flexibility. He 
was kingly in his bearing, with majestic beauty, with 
matchless symmetry, and perfect mechanism of form. 
Man was beyond measure superior to the strongest, king- 
liest beast that walked the earth.* 



*The Eternal Building.— I,emmon. 



Source of Man's Origin 393 

"The loveliest pair 
That ever yet in love's embrace met. 
Adam the goodliest man of men since born 
His sons : the fairest of her daughters, Eve." 

Man has a noble figure, fashioned by the divine hand, 
with mental powers capable of grasping and solving the 
problems of earth, and a spiritual nature fitted to com- 
mune with God face to face. Human reason was mod- 
eled after the infinite divine reason. The finite man 
images the infinite Creator. As the dew drop images the 
rising sun, so man images his divine Maker. He has in 
his limited degree, the same reason, the same power of 
volition, and the same self-consciousness. He is the 
same in kind, however different in measure, his power 
may be. He was made a little lower than God. He par- 
takes of the infinite and divine. He was created in the 
shadow and similitude of God. In man a spiritual nature 
analogous to the divine is united with a corporal body. 
He does not act automatically, but from free choice, un- 
fettered by organic necessity. He is not pushed from 
behind by dead and forgotten ancestors, but is drawn 
from above by the unseen. Man is a spiritual being with 
a personality like unto the personality of the divine being 
in whom he lives, moves, and has his being. Man ranks 
not with the lower order of beings like the apes, but with 
higher personalities like the angels and God. He is iden- 
tified with the earth through his body, and is thus a part 
of the visible order of things, but his real self is super- 
natural, and is consequently infinitely above the visible 
order. Man can not be explained in terms of matter. 
force, and motion, for he originates force, controls mat- 



394 The Origin of Man 

ter, and directs motion. Man is allied to God. In his 
body he is of the earth, but in his spirit he is the offspring 
of God. Man's intellectual powers capable of the highest 
development and his spiritual nature capable of com- 
munion with his Maker, lift him above the creatures of 
earth and make him akin to celestial beings. 

"Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting : 
The soul that rises with us, our life's Star, 

Hath had elsewhere its setting, 
And cometh from afar : 

Not in entire forgetfulness, 

And not in utter nakedness, 

But trailing clouds of glory, do we come 

From God, who is our home." 



IV. 

The essential teachings of the two theories that un- 
dertake to account for the origin of man have been placed 
before the reader. According to the hypothesis of evolu- 
tion, man was evolved from a single germ cell by gradual 
and infinitesimal changes through all the lower forms of 
life until he reached his place at the head of the earth's 
life. But according to the theory of special creation he 
was created de novo by Almighty God. The claims of 
evolutionists have been briefly stated, and the objections 
to their arguments have been set forth. It has been 
shown that the new philosophy is inimical to man's high- 
est hopes and derogatory to the character of God. The 
proofs by which it is attempted to substantiate the de- 
velopment theory have been concisely stated, and their 
weakness and insufficiency noted. And the numerous 



Source of Man's Origin 395 

facts that are diametrically opposed to the theory have 
been pointed out to the reader. The evidence that is em- 
ployed to establish special creation has been carefully set 
forth. That there is a law of evolution is admitted, and 
what is true in the theory of development is freely ac- 
knowledged. But it has been shown that there is another 
and equally important law operating in nature. This is 
the law of revolution, and it accounts for the origin of 
things. It has been shown that the formation of the 
earth, the development of the species, the advent of man, 
and the origin of life itself were all in harmony with 
this law. It has also been shown that reason demands 
that there shall be back of the earth, the species, and man, 
a supreme First Cause in order to satisfactorily account 
for their existence. 

When the evidence for and against these theories is 
carefully weighed, which hypothesis seems to be a proba- 
ble truth, because it has a preponderance of evidence in 
its favor? It is admitted that we can not prove any 
hypothesis with absolute certainty. But which of these 
theories has in its favor the preponderance of proof that 
renders it a moral certainty? Have evolutionists estab- 
lished the fact that their theory is the true cause of all 
natural phenomena? Have they been able to show that 
beyond a reasonable doubt evolution is competent to pro- 
duce these phenomena? Have they been able to estab- 
lish the fact that no other cause is competent to produce 
them? Have they proved that evolution is the true cause 
of the progress that has taken place in nature? If they 
have established these facts, the preponderance oi evi- 
dence is with this hypothesis, and we must accept the 
theory of evolution as a proved result of science, regard- 



396 The Origin of Man 

less of its far-reaching results and its destruction of the 
highest hopes and beliefs of humanity. 

Have we succeeded in establishing the fact that an 
infinite Creator is the true cause of all natural phenom- 
ena? Is there a shadow of doubt in the mind of the 
reader that Almighty God could give existence by divine 
fiat to the phenomena of nature? Has it been demon- 
strated that no cause except a divine First Cause is com- 
petent to produce the earth, the species, and man? If 
these facts have been established, the preponderance of 
evidence is with the theory of special creation, and this 
hypothesis must be accepted as substantiated. We be- 
lieve that the reader who has followed this discussion is 
competent to weigh the evidence that has been set forth, 
and is capable of estimating the value of the arguments 
that have been adduced. We leave the reader, therefore, 
to judge for himself whether there has been a case made 
out against the hypothesis of evolution and in favor of 
the theory of special creation. 



■>■ 


















^ 



Oo 






& *%, -,m 



,<v 












■** «* 







■ A 



w 



^ 



tp 






£°<* 



' / 




H 7^ 









^ ^ 









<* 




- 






^ ^ 



^ *8 0* \ V 



<{> ' 7 ^- 




^UyV 



'** & 



v* 









<s> v 






cS 



^ 









,0 o 









& ^ 



/• c- 



A' 



A y <?« 







*■<* 






: 















%. *" 


















V 



v> .<< 



. 









^> 



